Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD (LANDS) BILL (By Order)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next at seven o'clock.

SMETHWICK CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday next at seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

School Broadcasts

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Minister of Education if he will describe the machinery through which his Department approves the B.B.C.'s educational broadcasts to schools.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): These broadcasts are not subject to approval by the Ministry. In providing the broadcasts the B.B.C. are guided by the School Broadcasting Council for the United Kingdom on which the Ministry, and other educational bodies, are represented.

Major Beamish: While I am in no sense critical of the general run of these broadcasts, which I believe to be of very high quality, does the reply of the right hon. Gentleman mean that he does not in fact exercise any supervision at all over these broadcasts and that he is not in fact really interested in them?

Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir. It means that we are very strongly represented on the Council but we are not responsible for them.

Major Beamish: If I send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of a broadcast given recently by Mr. G. D. H. Cole to sixth forms to mark the centenary of the Communist Manifesto, which I believe to be of a distinctly partisan nature, will he look into it and give an assurance that such broadcasts will not be allowed in future?

Mr. Tomlinson: I will look at it, but I cannot promise to give an assurance about anything.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the main content of the Communist Manifesto can be got in the history of the Levellers' Movement during the Civil War?

Sir Waldron Smithers: In view of the recently announced policy of the Government to purge the Civil Service, will the Minister use what power he has to extend that purge to the B.B.C.?

Mr. Speaker: This Question deals only with educational broadcasts.

Sir W. Smithers: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. As the Minister of Education has already expressed some measure of responsibility will he use what measures he has to bring about a much needed Communist purge in educational broadcasts?

Mr. Speaker: That is quite another question.

Dental Officers (Salary)

Mr. Baird: asked the Minister of Education when he expects to be able to make a public decision on the recent application by dentists in the public service for an interim increase in salary.

Mr. Tomlinson: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to dental officers employed in the School Health Service under local education authorities. It is not for me, but for the local authorities in the first instance, to consider the application made on behalf of the dental officers for an interim review of their salaries, and I am not in a position to say when any decision on the matter will be reached.

Mr. Baird: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any representations by dentists in the public service?

Mr. Tomlinson: I have had representations but I have not felt it incumbent upon me to meet the representations so far as I was personally concerned in my position as Minister, believing that it is for the local authorities first to meet them.

Kittyhawk Aeroplane (Bequest)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Education on what grounds and in what circumstances the Kittyhawk aeroplane bequeathed by the late Mr. Orville Wright to the Science Museum, South Kensington, has been given to America.

Mr. Tomlinson: The Kittyhawk aeroplane was bequeathed by the late Mr. Orville Wright to the Science Museum, but with the following proviso: "unless before my decease I personally in writing have asked its withdrawal from that Museum." This stipulation was subsequently fulfilled. The question of gift, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Can my right hon. Friend explain how it is that this aeroplane was returned to Washington while we continue to hang on to the Lane pictures here, the two cases being exactly similar and parallel in all the circumstances involved?

Mr. Tomlinson: If I am asked to answer that question, the answer is that I have nothing to do with the Lane pictures.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH INFORMATION SERVICES, INDIA

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what party political literature other than the report of the Socialist Party Conference for 1947 was displayed by British Information Services at their office in Calcutta during January, 1948.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): None, Sir, during January, 1948. Reports of Conferences of the major British political parties are displayed by the British Information Services in India as they are received. In addition other material issued by the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Party organisations has from time to time been made available to the British Information Services in

India. Every effort is made to provide a balanced presentation of literature issued by the major political parties.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While I thank the Under-Secretary for that reply, may I ask him if he will draw the attention of the British Information Services to the need not only to be impartial, but to seem impartial; and whether the fact that the display at one particular time of one particular party's conference does not give an impression of partiality?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Yes, Sir, I quite see that, but at different times the literature of different parties has been displayed alone. There have been times when only the report of the Conservative Party Conference has been on display. These things are sent out directly they are available, but there may be considerable delay in transport. We try to get a fair representation of our party life in this country in our overseas offices.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Does the hon. Gentleman really think it satisfactory that party propaganda should be distributed, even in an impartial way, by a State service when there is plenty of non-party material available in this country?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: This is a difficult point. I have given a lot of attention to it and I think, on the whole, it is wise that we should display abroad this part of our democratic life. We make available things like the Industrial Charter, "Cards on the Table," and so forth, and, on balance, I think it is wiser that we should do this.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: May I ask what literature is available which sets out a positive and constructive policy for the Conservative Party?

An Hon. Member: There is not any.

Major Beamish: The Minister spoke about major political parties; would he say when a party ceases to be a major political party?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Raw Cotton (Prices)

Mr. Stanley Prescott: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement concerning the recent


increases in raw cotton prices and the effect on the cotton industry.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) on Tuesday last.

Mr. Prescott: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement concerning recent representations made by the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners to the Cotton Purchasing Committee relative to the increase in raw cotton prices.

Mr. H. Wilson: No, Sir. This is a matter between the Federation and the Commission.

Government Paper Supplies

Mr. Vane: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the total available paper, suitable for printing and publishing, but excluding newsprint, is now being used by or on behalf of the Government services.

Mr. H. Wilson: The consumption of printing and writing paper for Government purposes represents approximately 10 per cent. of the supplies available.

Towels and Sheets

Mr. Keenan: asked the President of the Board of Trade why in Liverpool stores, hand towels are offered at 2s. 11d. each, and one coupon, when better quality hand towels offered at 14s. 11d. each require only one half-coupon to be surrendered.

Mr. H. Wilson: A towel for which the rate is one coupon is larger than a towel at half a coupon. The coupon rate is based upon size and not upon price, which may vary widely with quality and in the case of a non-utility towel would include Purchase Tax.

Mr. Keenan: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware of the basis of this complaint? While there may be a slight difference in the size of the towel, the fact remains that those who have a lot of money, by the surrender of half a coupon, can get more than double what those get who surrender one coupon?

Mr. Wilson: This is entirely a difference of size, and if there is to be a demarcation of size, then there are bound to be difficult points.

Mr. Tolley: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that there is discrimination in this matter? This is what is causing frustration in the country. Will he look at the matter to try to remove it?

Mr. Wilson: No, I think my hon. Friend is confusing this with the question of curtains and certain other things, at which I have promised to look. The same considerations do not apply to towels.

Mr. Chetwynd: Could my right hon. Friend say whether the one coupon towels are twice as large as the half-coupon towels?

Mr. Wilson: Some are and some are not. The point is that towels over three but not over seven square feet in area need half a coupon, while towels over seven but not over 12 square feet need one. If my hon. Friend chooses the right stage within these figures he can find one which is twice as large.

Mr. Scollan: Why, in the case of towels, is half a coupon needed for a half-size towel whereas, in the case of sheets, mentioned in the next Question, eight coupons are needed for a larger sheet and 12 for a smaller one?

Mr. Wilson: That is another question.

Mr. Austin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a very real grievance exists in the minds of housewives at having to surrender their own personal coupons for household materials of this nature? Will he look into the question of giving some sort of relief to the housewife in enabling her to buy towels, curtains and other materials without having to surrender coupons?

Mr. Wilson: I have often said that there is nothing I would rather do, but if I were to do that within the present range of supplies of textile goods, it would mean a cut in the personal clothing ration. As and when things begin to increase, I shall certainly hope to see what can be done in that respect.

Mr. Keenan: asked the President of the Board of Trade why, in Liverpool stores, pairs of bed sheets, size 80 x 100 in., offered at £1 12s. 3d. and £1 2s. 6d. require 12 coupons, and larger sheets, size 90 x 100 in., price £2 0s. 9d., only require eight coupons to be surrendered.

Mr. H. Wilson: While the rate for a pair of sheets size 90 x 100 in. is normally 14 coupons, a special exception is made in the case of utility sheets of the Specification numbers 163 and 164 which, although 90 in. or more in width, are made of twill and seamed down the middle and are pointed at eight coupons per pair. The coupon rates have nothing to do with the maximum prices which vary with quality.

Mr. Keenan: Is not the President aware of the factors operating in this case—that if purchasers are prepared to pay more, they need not surrender so many coupons? Will the President consider this factor and relate the articles to the number of coupons surrendered, if he cannot let us have them coupon-free?

Mr. Wilson: I have already said that this is a question of size, with the special exception of this particular quality. The reason for that is that these sheets are made from a special kind of cloth woven on narrow looms, put into production to supplement the supply of sheets already there. They are, therefore, a substitute for normal sheets, they are not as good and, therefore, cannot be expected to compete in coupons with the others.

Mr. Keenan: But is it not a fact with sheets, like other things, that value is the thing, that there is a price upon them and those who are able to pay more, can purchase more? That is the point we are grumbling about.

Mr. Wilson: That is not the case. I admit that the problem arises in the case of curtains, but in this particular case there have been several reasons at work which have nothing to do with the price at all.

Furniture

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will relate production in the furniture industry to actual rather than potential buying.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am not quite certain that I have correctly understood my hon. Friend's Question, but I can assure him that production is already related as nearly as possible to actual buying.

Mr. Haire: Is my right hon. Friend aware that three-quarters of a million furniture units were not used last year and that, as a result, the furniture shops

are stocked up with certain types of utility furniture? Would he not allow these units to be used for some other priority cases?

Mr. Wilson: That is what I thought perhaps my hon. Friend had in mind. I can tell him that we are looking into the question of the validity of additional units at present not available for purchase, and also we are still looking into the question of the volume and scale of furniture production.

Mr. Haire: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will include in the priority list for utility furniture those members of His Majesty's Forces now being repatriated from India, Egypt and Palestine, and who have never had a home in this country.

Mr. H. Wilson: Yes, Sir. Married couples returning from service abroad have always been accorded the same treatment as the newly-wed.

Mr. Haire: Does that apply to returning soldiers who have never had a domicile in this country and who were married before 1939?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, I think so, but I would like to look into that question.

Independent Film Producers (Finance)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade what means he is employing to ensure finance for the independent film producer.

Mr. H. Wilson: As regards action directed specifically to affording improved access to finance to qualified independent producers, I have been going into this matter very carefully, and I hope to be able in the very near future to announce arrangements that are in train.

Production Statistics

Mr. Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade the statistical basis on which he calculates that our present national product exceeds that of 1938.

Mr. H. Wilson: There are considerable statistical difficulties in evaluating the net results of divergent changes in many industries over a period of ten years and different methods may give different results. I am, however, informed that the statement that our production exceeds


that of 1938, which appeared in the Economic Survey for 1948, was based on the fact that such calculations as can be made from the data in the Monthly Digest of Statistics and other publications, together with the Index of Production for 1946 and 1947, indicate clearly that whatever method is employed, the current level of production exceeds that of 1938.

Mr. Shepherd: As this is of considerable interest to the country, will the President of the Board of Trade produce what evidence he has in some form which is available to Members of this House and to members of the public?

Mr. Wilson: I will look into that. The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that quite independent calculations made, for instance, by "The Economist," came to an exactly similar conclusion, in fact, before the statement was made on behalf of the Government.

Major Bruce: Would my right hon. Friend consider disclosing in more detail how his own production indexes are now arrived at?

Mr. Wilson: I will consider that.

Men's Clothing (Stocks)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the stocks held by men's outfitters are of large dimensions and are frozen because the markets are closed; and if he will take steps to enable traders to dispose of these goods, particulars of which have been sent him, either at home or abroad.

Mr. H. Wilson: It is not the case that all overseas markets are closed to goods of this kind and it is most important that traders should take every possible step to live up to the undertakings to export on which they acquired such goods. I am writing to the hon. Member about the particular case of which he has given me some details.

Sir W. Smithers: While thanking the Minister for that answer, may I ask him if he will take what steps he can to decrease the coupon value, or to issue more coupons for home consumption and give complete freedom for export? Does he not realise that the accumulation of stocks is entirely due to State control?

Mr. Wilson: No, it is due to nothing of the kind. I have already made considerable easement in the matter of export controls, and I am not aware of any difficulties in the way of exporting these goods so far as the British Government are concerned.

Mr. Spence: May I ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has taken all steps to see that foreign markets are open for our goods? Is he also aware that, although we have just signed a trade agreement with Denmark, Danish traders have informed suppliers here that no men's clothing is to be imported?

Mr. Wilson: I made a pretty full statement on this subject on Monday last and referred specifically to the case of Denmark.

Timber Stocks

Sir W. Smithers: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is, by regions, the stock of soft wood timber in the country; if export industries are receiving their requirements; what is the average monthly release of timber for housing; and what are the limiting factors to prevent the increase of the present allocation for housing by 150,000 standards.

Mr. H. Wilson: Stocks of hewn and sawn softwood—excluding sleepers and certain stocks in consumers hands—by regions, as at the end of January last, were approximately as follows:





Standards


North Eastern
…
…
79,846


North Western
…
…
77,565


Midland
…
…
75,129


South Eastern
…
…
184,355


Western
…
…
63,668


Northern Ireland
…
…
11,174


Scotland
…
…
52,321


So far as I am aware the essential timber needs of the export industries are being met. As regards the third part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given him by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on Tuesday last. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) on 6th November last by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware, and will he consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, that if the Government ceased


production of non-traditional houses, and concentrated on traditional houses, there would be an enormous saving of steel and timber?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir, I am not aware of anything of the kind, and I am in close and almost permanent consultation with my right hon. Frend.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Is the amount of timber in this country an increase on this time last year, or a reduction?

Mr. Wilson: A very considerable increase.

Mr. Harrison: Can my right hon. Friend make a comparison between the stocks held prior to the war, and stocks held today.

Mr. Wilson: I should want notice of that. I am not sure how complete the figures were before the war. My impression is that stocks at present are considerably above, about double a year ago, and are somewhat less than they were before the war.

Anglo-U.S.A. Film Agreement

Mr. Wyatt: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now publish the details of the Film Agreement recently concluded with the American Motion Picture Industry.

Mr. H. Wilson: The full text of the Agreement will be published as soon as its detailed provisions can be finalised.

Mr. Wyatt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that every representative of every American film company in London has a copy of this agreement and that British film companies are at a great disadvantage in not being in possession of it? Will he see that it is given to them?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir, I am not aware that every American representative has got a copy and I am certain that anything American representatives have in their hands our people have as well.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Is it a fact, which I believe to be true, that this agreement has had full publicity in America already? Will the right hon. Gentleman make certain that the same publicity is given here at once?

Mr. Wilson: Exactly the same publicity has been given in this country as in

America and what has been published in America has been published privately in this country and privately in America. The final details in one or two cases are not yet settled and I think it would be wrong to publish something which is not the final and complete agreement, which we hope to publish in the very near future.

Mr. Stanley: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman says that it has had private publication, would it not be better that that same publication should now be made available to the House?

Mr. Wilson: Whatever is leaking out privately in America, for which I bear no responsibility whatever, and has also been repeated in one of the trade journals over here, is not, and will not be, the final published agreement between the Government and the Motion Picture Association. I would not like to publish anything to this House, or anywhere else, which does not embody the final terms of the agreement.

Mr. Wyatt: How can a British company or firm associated with the film industry know whether it is breaking the terms of the agreement if it accedes to an American suggestion to do something with its studio space if it has not got the agreement and the Americans have?

Mr. Wilson: I have already said that the Americans have not got the final agreement. Secondly, if a company wants to know anything they can come and ask at the Board of Trade—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—Yes, a number of them have done so, and got a very clear answer from me personally. Thirdly, yesterday I sent a letter to all the British producers telling them exactly what is their position in regard to studio space.

Boot Repairs (Miners)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give further consideration to the request from the miners of Michael Colliery, East Wemyss, for an increased supply of leather for the repair of miners' boots at the special service set up for the purpose.

Mr. H. Wilson: No, Sir. I cannot treat the licensed shoe repairer at Michael Colliery more generously than other long established repairers in this area without


unfairness to them. As has been explained to the hon. Member, the same treatment has been given to this colliery repairer as to any other person setting up a new repair business.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is one of the largest and most productive pits in the country, and that boots are urgently essential to the miners? Is he aware that this shoemaker is only getting sufficient leather to keep going for one day a week and is only able to repair a very small number of the miners' boots at that pit? Will he not give them a priority of some kind to ensure that more of these boots are mended?

Mr. Wilson: We cannot treat this repairer any more favourably than any older established repairers in the area.

Mr. Odey: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an adequate supply of leather?

Salvage (Household Bones)

Mr. Odey: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the regulations with regard to the collection of household bones by local authorities; and which local authorities in Great Britain are under direction to conserve and collect these bones.

Mr. H. Wilson: A requirement to collect household bones is included in the general salvage directions under Regulation 54B of the Defence (General) Regulations 1939, which have been given to all urban and rural local authorities for districts with populations exceeding 5,000 and 10,000, respectively. Household bones have a very important raw material value in the production of glues, fats and fertilisers. I appeal, therefore, to local authorities and the public to increase the collections, which have now fallen to a very low level.

Mr. Odey: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that owing to our inadequate methods of collection there are 25,000 tons of bones wasted annually in this country, and that these bones are replaced by imported bones?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member appears to be giving information, and not asking for it.

Mr. Odey: Would the Minister take more positive steps to see that these bones are collected?

Mr. Wilson: Anything I can do with the local authorities—and, of course, we do not collect the bones ourselves—will be done.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Can the President of the Board of Trade assist us by defining the term "household bones." Is it "the skeleton in the cupboard"?

Mr. Wilson: I should want notice of that Question.

International Trade Organisation (Havana Charter)

Mr. Kenyon: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to make a statement about the Havana Conference on trade and employment.

Mr. H. Wilson: I have made available in the House today the documents resulting from this Conference. One of these papers reproduces the text of the Havana Charter of the International Trade Organisation which was authenticated by the Final Act of the Conference. Apart from certain points to which the United Kingdom Delegate made reference in the final plenary sessions of the Conference, the effect of the Charter generally does not materially differ from the Geneva draft, which has already been laid before Parliament as Cmd. 7212, but hon. Members will no doubt wish to have the opportunity to study it. Although His Majesty's Government hope in due course, if circumstances are favourable, to recommend the Charter to Parliament with a view to acceptance, it is not their intention to do this in the immediate future.
The second paper which has been laid contains Protocols making certain consequential amendments to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which have been formulated as the result of discussions between the contracting parties in accordance with the terms of that Agreement. In view of the wide measure of international agreement which was reached at Havana, arrangements have been made to accept these Protocols.

Mr. Maclay: Is it the intention to give the House an opportunity to discuss the papers, to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred, before the question of actual approval comes up?

Mr. Wilson: That is a question which should be addressed to the Leader of the House, but I have said that it will be our intention ultimately to recommend the charter to Parliament, which, of course, involves facilities for Debate, and I have also said it is not our intention to do so in the immediate future.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Electricity Supplies (Rural Areas)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will direct the electricity supply authorities to transform current on the three-phase circuit and abolish the single phase which is involving farmers and others, who wish to use electric power, in heavy expense and delay in the special wiring of electric motors.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): No, Sir. This is a technical matter which, I feel, should be left to the electricity boards to decide in carrying out their statutory duties.

Mr. York: Is the Minister prepared to advise the boards to carry on the same system which was used by the private power companies that when a supply is changed machinery is changed without cost to the consumers?

Mr. Gaitskell: I think that should be left to negotiation between the board concerned and the consumer.

Mr. Mikardo: Are not the unfortunate conditions described in the Question proof of how right the Government were to nationalise the industry?

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Hurd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that today a great many users in rural areas need more power than they did five years ago and that this is a growing problem?

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir, and we are naturally anxious to provide farmers with electricity, but the particular point about

the system to be adopted is a highly controversial matter and should be left to the experts.

British Oil Companies, Roumania

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is the number of representations that have been made to His Majesty's Government by British and British owned oil companies in Roumania; and what assistance has been afforded to these companies to ensure that these British assets are not expropriated without proper compensation.

Mr. Gaitskell: A considerable number of requests for assistance have been received from the British companies with oil interests in Roumania. As many of these representations have been made verbally, the exact number cannot be given. Whenever a request for assistance has justified action on the part of His Majesty's Government appropriate representations have been made to the Roumanian Government and there have been fifteen such cases during the last year, of which eight referred to the protection of British oil assets. We have stated to the Roumanian Government that we reserve our right to demand full compensation.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: May I ask the Minister whether, in addition to reserving our full right, the answer he has given can be construed to mean that the Government will ensure that these companies cannot be expropriated as they are being by the Roumanian Government and that we will get adequate and fair compensation for our assets?

Mr. Gaitskell: I can only answer for what the Government will do. I cannot answer for what the Roumanian Government will do.

Petrol Allowances

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will now reintroduce the petrol allowance for members of the Forces on foreign service leave.

Mr. Gaitskell: This matter is under consideration.

Commander Noble: When does the right hon. Gentleman think that he will come to a decision?

Mr. Gaitskell: I should hope by next week.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will provide petrol coupons to amateur cricket clubs for away matches as the cost of public transport, even if available, is beyond the means of many individual players.

Mr. Gaitskell: I cannot grant supplementary allowances for this purpose, but I trust that the introduction of the standard ration will do something to meet the difficulties which the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Lipson: Is the Minister aware that the amount of the standard ration is such that it will be swallowed up by one particular journey, and in view of the difficult situation of cricket will he not have another look at this matter?

Mr. Gaitskell: I should be only too pleased to help amateur cricket clubs, but it is impossible to draw a line between one form of amateur sport and another. We have had to draw it against the amateur in favour of the professional.

Mr. York: Is the Minister aware that the cricket season starts on 1st May, not on 1st June?

Advertising (Electric Light)

Mr. Charles Williams: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power for how long he proposes to prohibit the use of windmills to produce power for lighting purposes.

Mr. Gaitskell: No such prohibition exists. It is the use of electricity for business advertising which is at present illegal.

Mr. Williams: If the Minister enforces this regulation in my constituency for the purpose of preventing the practical use of enterprise, will he give me an assurance that he will not continue enlarging this interference with initiative? In the second place, will he assure me that he will not enforce the same punishment for breaking this regulation as was used for the enforcement of the Edicts of Diocletian?

Mr. Gaitskell: I consider that if we are to waste electricity there are many better things we can do with it before we go in for advertising. As the hon. Member knows

perfectly well, the only purpose of this restriction is to save fuel.

Mr. Williams: This is not for advertising but for the purpose of cheerfulness and providing brighter streets.

Mr. Gaitskell: If it is not for the purpose of advertising, it is not prohibited.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Could the Minister explain what is the object in this? Why is he preventing these people from lighting up these windows when they are using no fuel at all?

Mr. Gaitskell: It is impossible to draw the line between the use of batteries, windmills, diesel generating sets and mains for this Purpose, and if we were to relax the regulation under one of those heads it would be extremely difficult to enforce it under the others.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does not the Minister's answer mean that it is perfectly legal to manufacture electricity so long as one does not use it? Is not that a fantastic and absurd measure?

Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. Member should know that electricity cannot be manufactured without being used up.

Mr. Nicholson: Will the Minister remember that this year is the fourth centenary of Don Quixote?

Mr. Williams: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment, on a suitable occasion.

Petrol Sales (Regulations)

Mr. Harrison: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether in view of the new regulations coming into force for the sale of petrol on 1st June, he will consider raising the marginal allowance to garage proprietors on the sale of petrol, in view of the extra difficulties of logging and also the storing of the petrol by people who only have one or two pumps now there are to be two colours.

Mr. Gaitskell: This will be discussed with the Motor Agents' Association.

Petrol (Colouring)

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power in view of the recommendations of the Russell Vick Committee, what steps are contemplated


for the protection of motorists who use upper cylinder lubricant for the better maintenance of their cars, in view of the fact that this lubricant is coloured red

Mr. Gaitskell: The offence will depend not on the colour of the petrol but on the presence in the petrol of a prescribed chemical.

Colonel Gomme-Dunean: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the chemical contained in these upper cylinder lubricants will be prescribed or not?

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Coke (Supplies)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether in view of the considerable increase in stocks, he will now restore to the previous maximum of 56 lb. the quantity of coke which can be obtained off the ration.

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir. We have to develop the export of coke, and in any case I could not agree that what my hon. Friend proposes is the best way of making available to the home market any additional supplies of coke which we can afford for this purpose.

Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a person who wants a bigger ration of coke can make any number of journeys—usually a small boy does it—and could he not make the sensible concession asked for in the question?

Mr. Gaitskell: My hon. Friend's proposal would seem to lead to the conclusion that we should abolish the 28 lb. limit altogether.

Domestic Supplies, Cheltenham

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will take steps to improve the quality of coal supplied to domestic consumers in the Cheltenham area.

Mr. Gaitskell: No complaint has been received by the Regional Coal Officer for this area, but if the hon. Member will bring any specific complaint to the notice of the West Midlands Division of the

National Coal Board it will be investigated.

Mr. Lipson: If the quality is below standard would not the consumer be entitled to apply to the local fuel overseer either for an increased supply or a reduction in price?

Mr. Gaitskell: The right course in the first instance is to apply to the supplier and try to obtain redress, and if he fails in that he should apply to the regional coal officer for the area.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIEN (VISA APPLICATION)

Mr. Molson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why despite the letter dated 30th June, 1947, to the hon. Member for The High Peak stating that an application by Dr. Gerhard Rohl for a visa to enable him to join his wife at 107, Oxford Street, Old Trafford, Manchester, would be sympthatically received, no visa has been issued and this family is still forcibly separated against their wishes.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): A visa was authorised on 23rd September, 1947, and Dr. Rohl was advised how to apply for a permit to leave the United States zone, which must be obtained before the British visa can actually be granted. Since nothing further had been heard from Dr. Rohl, the Passport Control Officer wrote to him on 30th March, but Dr. Rohl has not replied to this letter.

Mr. Austin: On a point of Order. As this Question refers to a constituent of mine, and following the protest of an hon. Friend of mine yesterday on a similar matter, may I ask whether there is no means of ensuring that others do not interfere in one's constituency problems?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the hon. Member himself. We cannot regulate what other hon. Members do.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRE DAMAGE (STATISTICS)

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fires have broken out


causing damage greater than £1,000, £5,000 and £10,000 in 1938, in 1947, and in 1948 to the nearest date.

Mr. Ede: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes) on 16th December last.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOROUGH COUNCIL ELECTIONS (REGISTER)

Mr. Frederic Harris: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is proposed that the May, 1949, election of borough councillors shall be contested on a Register of Electors to be published next October by reference to the occupation of premises on 30th June, 1948.

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir, subject to any amendment affecting the point which may be made in the Representation of the People Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROBATION SERVICE (ADVISORY COMMITTEE)

Mr. Royle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can give any information as to the constitution of the Probation Advisory Committee and how appointments to this Committee are made; and as to the number of candidates for the Probation Service now awaiting interviews by the Advisory Committee and the methods adopted by the Home Office in placing trainees in suitable vacancies.

Mr. Ede: As the answer is necessarily long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Royle: Is it a fact that in spite of the great shortage of probation officers the present methods of selection do not provide sufficient candidates; and that prospective candidates are kept waiting for long periods for interview?

Mr. Ede: I think my hon. Friend had better read the answer, and then, if he is not satisfied with any part of it he can put down a further Question.

Following is the answer:

I appointed the Probation Advisory Committee on 31st January, 1946, for a

period of three years to advise me on questions relating to the administration of the probation system and the other social services of the courts. It consists of 17 members, including six magistrates, a recorder, a clerk of the peace, a justices' clerk, three principal probation officers and other persons experienced in the problems of delinquency.

Candidates for training as probation officers are considered by the Probation Training Board, a body which I have appointed to select men and women for training and to provide facilities for training them. About 40 candidates are awaiting interview by a Selection Committee of the Board. Interviews can now be offered within one to three weeks but 16 of those waiting have asked for their interviews to be deferred.

Outside London probation officers are appointed by probation committees of the local justices; and when a probation committee notifies a vacancy for a probation officer, the aim of the Home Office is to submit to the committee two or three trained candidates for consideration. At present, however, there are more vacancies than trained candidates available, so that usually it is only possible to offer one trainee for interview to each of those committees whose claims are judged to be the more urgent. The most suitable candidate is submitted having regard to the needs of the particular area, the personality of the candidate and, so far as possible, his or her personal convenience.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Health Centres

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that widespread anxiety has been aroused by his recent circular to local authorities discouraging any development of health centres at the present time; and, in view of the advantages of the health centre stressed by the Medical Planning Commission in 1942, and the obligation resting on local health authorities under the new National Health Service scheme to provide such centres, whether he will now issue further instructions making it clear that it is not his intention to discourage any initiative in the planning and setting up of new health centres.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): There is evidently a misunderstanding. I have never wished to discourage health centres, which will be a key feature of the new health service. But I have had to point out the building stringencies of the moment and say that I do not, therefore, expect any widespread programmes yet.

Mr. Platts-Mills: In view of the extent of the misunderstanding that arose over the first circular relating to this matter, and of the immense support there is, particularly amongst doctors, for the idea of group practice, as indeed there is in the rest of the medical world, would the Minister consider issuing a further circular to clarify the situation that has arisen, and also consider encouraging the provision of some health centres in advance of others, where they are particularly needed?

Mr. Bevan: The misconception arises out of the fact that citizens allow their ideas to be determined by headlines in the Press and not by the circulars themselves. If they had read the circulars they would have seen that I encouraged the local authorities to put up their plans.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: If there is not to be a universal distribution of health centres throughout the country in the next year or two, will the Minister recommend that the weekly contribution should be reduced?

Mr. Bevan: That astonishes me. The weekly contribution bears very small relationship to the total expenditure on the National Health Service, which is largely borne by Exchequer funds.

Dr. Haden Guest: Where a health centre building cannot be established, may I ask whether the Minister would encourage the formation of group practice by medical teams where it is essential in future to have centres?

Mr. Bevan: As my hon. Friend knows, I have all along expressed the opinion that partnerships and grouped general practitioners are desirable features, and they are being encouraged in the new service. I can also assure him that facilities are being given to enable new entrants to act first as assistants.

Medical and Dental Schools

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: asked the Minister of Health, when he invited the medical and dental schools to consider the recommendations of the Goodenough and Teviot Committees, if he asked them to make recommendations; and when does he expect to receive their Report.

Mr. Bevan: I will send the hon. Member copies of statements made in this, House by my predecessor and myself on, 18th January, 1945, and 11th October, 1946, respectively. There is no question, of my receiving reports from the medical and dental schools.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Surely the Minister is aware that the Goodenough Committee published their report some years ago; is he doing nothing whatever to take steps to produce more doctors and dentists in the near future?

Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member will examine the facts, he will see that a very great deal has been done in carrying out the recommendations of the Goodenough Report.

Clinic, North London

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Minister of Health what representations he has received regarding the proposed closing down of the Almeric-Paget Clinic, Thoresby Street, N.1; whether he is aware that this clinic caters for patients living in Islington, Finsbury and Shoreditch: and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Bevan: Local patients have written to me about this clinic which is being closed by the trustees. I have no power to prevent closure, but the Regional Hospital Board for the area know the position and will take account of the need when they become responsible for hospital services on 5th July.

Mr. Platts-Mills: I understood the Minister to say that the trustees were closing this place on their own initiative, but is the Minister aware that they are issuing to all patients a leaflet which, quite unambiguously, says that the clinic is being closed as a consequence of the taking over by the State of the health services? Will he take steps to discourage the trustees from abusing the Government behind their backs, and in view of the fact that this


clinic provides very valuable physiotherapy services for people in Islington, Finsbury and Shoreditch, would he encourage the trustees to keep the place open?

Mr. Bevan: In regard to the latter part of the supplementary question, I will certainly try to ensure that continuity of service is observed. With regard to the first part, people in this country have a right to abuse the Government and I must say that they take advantage of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Huts, Stafford

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Health what progress has been made in the conversion of hutted accommodation in Aqualate Park in the rural district of Stafford for emergency housing; how many families will be accommodated in these dwellings; and when they will be ready for occupation.

Mr. Bevan: Plans to convert the first 26 huts at this camp have been approved, and tenders are to be invited. The whole camp should provide accommodation for go families, and the first huts should be ready for occupation within three months of the acceptance of tenders.

Private Enterprise Building

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Health if, in view of the growing lack of work for many small building firms, he will now allow local authorities to issue further licences for private enterprise building.

Mr. Bevan: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) on 18th March.

Mr. Hurd: How far does the Minister want the building industry to disband its resources before he will allow local authorities more discretion in this matter?

Mr. Bevan: Local authorities have already received, in the last few months, a very large number of additional approvals. There is no question of the building industry being dispersed. In fact, there are far too many building firms in existence for economic operation.

Mr. J. H. Hare: Could the Minister say whether or not he would allow great latitude for the reconditioning of houses for rural workers in the country areas?

Mr. Bevan: Circulars have been sent out to authorities generally relaxing the conditions and rules relating to repairs, but it would be undesirable to do that in the rural areas if it were done at the expense of new accommodation.

Mr. Grimston: Referring to the reply of the Minister to the last supplementary question but one, are we to take it that it is the policy to drive the small firms out of business?

Mr. Bevan: No. If the hon. Member would acquaint himself with the facts he would realise that we have made special arrangements for small firms to build houses for sale to the local authorities, where they are too small to be able to place tenders in the ordinary way. It is a fact that the building industry is in many respects grossly inefficient because there are too many firms.

Thatched Buildings (Repairs)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the decay of thatching and other rural crafts; and what steps he is taking both to encourage their revival and in the case of cottages and other thatched buildings needing repairs, to have these effected.

Mr. Bevan: I am aware of the position, and I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has arranged under the Government Vocational Training Scheme for training in thatching to be given by selected employers in an effort to maintain the supply of skilled workers.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the meantime the roofs of many charming thatched cottages, in such counties as Bedfordshire and Herefordshire, are being repaired with asbestos sheets, and that this arrangement is spoiling the attractiveness of many of the villages in which the cottages are situated?

Mr. Bevan: I agree that it is desirable to have this supply of skilled men replenished. We have had experience in one or two areas where, after having


trained men, there has not been sufficient demand for their labour. However, I am extremely keen about this myself and I will re-examine the position.

Mrs. Manning: Will my right hon. Friend look after these houses which have been repaired in such an ugly way? Since many beautiful cottages in Essex have completely disappeared, one agrees that it is better to repair the rest, but will the Minister see that they have their thatches put back as soon as possible?

Mr. Bevan: I have no prejudice against thatching. I lived for many years in a very agreeable thatched cottage. I will certainly look into the matter.

Mr. Driber·: When my right hon. Friend says that sometimes there is no demand for the services of trained men, would he look at the position in Essex particularly, where very often a thatcher has to go 20 or 30 miles and his services cannot be got for months?

Mr. Bevan: I will have the position examined district by district. We might have a lack of supply in one place and a surplus in another.

Requisitioned House, Withernsea

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: asked the Minister of Health when No. 9 Cheverton Avenue, Withernsea, property of Mrs. Jessie Empson, will be derequisitioned.

Mr. Bevan: I regret that I am unable to say when this house is likely to be released from requisition.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this lady purchased this house in order to provide a home for her married son on his return from the Forces, and that the son is now demobilised but he and his wife are living in a single room in Hull at a rent of 15s. a week? Will he look at the matter again?

Mr. Bevan: I will certainly make inquiries. The note I have is that the lady in question consented to the house being requisitioned on condition that a second house of hers was released for her own use, but I will make further inquiries.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: That was in 1941.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Control of Engagement (Agricultural Worker)

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Labour why Mr. J. W. Earle, of Lupton, Holme, Westmorland, has been refused permission by his Department to leave his present employment in order to join the police force, after he has been accepted by the Chief Constable of Burnley.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Mr. Earle is an experienced agricultural worker. Quite exceptional measures are now in operation to build up the labour force of the agricultural industry and these measures must necessarily involve the retention in the industry, as far as possible, of every experienced worker. In the circumstances it was not possible for my Department to permit Mr. Earle to join the Police Force.

Mr. Vane: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is in the interests of the police force, which is much under strength, or of the country generally, that volunteers, such as Mr. Earle, should be refused the opportunity to spend their lives serving in this force, as a result of these dictatorial rules and regulations?

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Gentleman asks me what I think. I think that the need to carry out the Control of Engagement Order and to keep manned up the agricultural industry is paramount.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in order to ascertain whether the need for reinforcements to the police has not become even more acute in the last 24 hours?

Miles Aircraft Factory, Woodley

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Labour how many of the staff of Miles Aircraft Factory at Woodley have, since September, 1947, been registered as unemployed for more than a fortnight; and how many of those registering have been advised to take posts outside the Reading area.

Mr. Isaacs: Of the persons previously employed by Miles Aircraft Ltd. at present registering for employment at the Reading local office, 123 men have been


unemployed for two weeks or more; 46 are unwilling to accept work away from home, and 17 of the remainder have been submitted to jobs away from the area. It is not possible to identify registrations at other local offices without a disproportionate amount of work.

Mr. Hurd: Is there a prospect of other light engineering work being found for these men in the Reading area?

Mr. Isaacs: I really could not say about the prospects in that area, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that every step will be taken to put these men into touch with jobs without their having to leave home.

Mr. Mikardo: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this position will be aggravated by the new arrangement reached by this company, whereby they will be transferring their aircraft contracts to another manufacturer, and, if so, is he confident that he can absorb a reasonable proportion of the new people who will be displaced by that transfer?

Mr. Isaacs: Those are two hypothetical questions. If my hon. Friend will put them down I will try to answer them.

Mrs. Leah Manning: Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether all the ex-Service trainees at this aircraft factory have been absorbed into other training centres?

Mr. Isaacs: Not without notice of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Imports from Canada

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make a statement on the arrangements for financing imports into the United Kingdom from Canada.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): This matter is at present the subject of discussion, and I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Platts-Mills: In view of the obvious difficulties that have arisen in continuing trading relations between ourselves and Canada, does it mean that Mr. Marshall, who is already directing our trade in Europe, is seeking to direct our trade with the Empire as well?

Mr. Jay: It is quite true that without the European Recovery Programme, this problem would have been insoluble, but with the help of the programme we hope a solution has been reached.

Aircraft Carrier (Sale)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the terms of payment for the aircraft carrier recently sold to the Royal Netherlands Government; and why His Majesty's Government are satisfied with these terms.

Mr. Jay: It is not the policy of His Majesty's Government to disclose the terms under which vessels, surplus to the requirements of the Royal Navy, are sold to other Governments. The Government are fully satisfied with the terms of sale.

Special Contribution (Annuities)

Captain John Crowder: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is proposing that moneys received from annuities endowment policies or provident funds will be regarded as investment income for the purpose of assessing liability for the new Special Contribution.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I must ask the hon. Member to await the publication of the Finance Bill.

Captain Crowder: Will the Financial Secretary bear in mind that annuities are in fact repayment of capital, and will he consider this question very carefully before the actual Bill is drafted?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think the hon. Member can rest assured that my right hon. and learned Friend will bear all the factors in mind.

P.A.Y.E. (Business Firms)

Sir William Darling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what complaints of delay on the work done under Pay As You Earn by business firms he has received; how much taxation is collected by this means and what is the cost to the State of this service by business firms.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Most employers operate P.A.Y.E. with efficiency and expedition and complaints about it are rare.


I would refer the hon. Member to Table 41 of the recently published Annual Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Cmd. 7362) which shows the amounts of tax deducted in recent years. The information asked for in the third part of the Question is not available.

Sir W. Darling: May I ask if the Minister can form any estimate at all of the cost of this tax collection service, which is rendered unpaid to the Crown by the business firms of this country?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is quite impossible. I would not like to hazard a guess. I wish I could.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in respect of this Question, the boot is not on the other foot; and what is the period of delay in the Inland Revenue offices in dealing with arrears of P.A.Y.E. at the present time?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We get very few complaints about delay. The suggestion of delay was contained in the Question of the hon. Member.

Purchase Tax

Mr. Granville Sharp: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why a 66⅔ per cent. Purchase Tax has been imposed on draining boards; and whether he will reconsider this matter as prejudicing the provision of efficient housing.

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will exempt draining boards from Purchase Tax at 66⅔ per cent., in view of their necessity for household purposes.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Under the Budget proposals, draining boards, in common with hardware, ironmongery, table kitchen and toilet ware generally, as sold over the shop counter, are chargeable at 33⅓ per cent. The housing question arises only if this type is installed in preference to the types which are builders' fixtures, and which are exempt from Purchase Tax

Mr. Sharp: In view of the fact that many local authorities prefer to buy manufactured non-timber draining boards, rather than to use timber for draining boards, will my right hon. Friend reconsider this matter?

Savings

Mr. Sharp: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to encourage savings, he will introduce a new National Savings Certificate yielding, approximately, 2½ per cent. rate of interest, and maturing in 10 years, at a price which compensates for any fall in the purchasing power of the savings.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir.

Mr. Sharp: In view of the fact that it is necessary for the National Savings movement to have some new goods in the shop window, will my right hon. Friend reconsider this matter, bearing in mind that many people are concerned at the decreased value of their savings, and would like to feel that in 10 years' time the money which they are investing now will have the same value as it has now.

Mr. Osborne: In view of the fact that national savings have lost 40 per cent. of their real value in the last 10 years, will the right hon. Gentleman give some guarantee that in future people who put their money into national savings will be able to get the same value back as they put in?

Mr. Scollan: Is it not the case that the reason for the loss in the value of this money was the five or six years of war, during which time we produced no real wealth and nothing but destructive weapons; therefore, is it not reasonable to assume that if we are given peace for the next 10 years, the value of our money will appreciate very greatly?

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the solution to the problem posed by his hon. Friends is an immediate change of Government?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The answer is that the Government are doing all they can to hold the cost of living stable.

Tithe Redemption (Agents)

Mr. Somerville Hastings: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what percentage of the money paid to the Tithe Redemption Commission is received by local agents for collection.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Approximately 63 per cent.

Mr. Hastings: In view of the uniformity and regularity of these payments, could


not most of that 63 per cent. be saved if the money was collected directly by the Tithe Commission?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, Sir, but I understand that when the Bill went through Parliament in 1936 an undertaking was given to continue to employ these agents. As they give up, through death or retirement, the collection goes to the central authority.

Mr. Hastings: Is this not a gross waste of public money?

Seized Currency (Refund)

Commander Noble: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will reconsider the case of a traveller who, just before leaving Jamaica, was refunded £8 paid as a deposit for a hired car, and had this sum confiscated on arrival in this country.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It has already been decided to restore the seizure in this case. The applicant's solicitors were informed of this on 9th April.

Commander Noble: Is the Minister aware that the refund was made in Jamaican notes, that at the request of the Jamaican authorities it was changed into British notes, and on arrival in this country the traveller was told that it would have been all right if he had brought Jamaican notes?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: As soon as it was discovered that the Jamaican authorities had insisted on changing this money into British notes, we restored it.

Anglo-Italian Property and Debts Agreement

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Economic Secretary to the Treasury when the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 3 of Annex to No. 6 of the Anglo-Italian Property and Debts Agreement, Cmd. 7118, will come into force.

Mr. Jay: The Anglo-Italian Property and Debts Agreement came into force when the Treaty of Peace with Italy was ratified on 15th September, 1947. Steps are now being taken to carry out the Agreement and a public announcement will be made shortly of the detailed procedure which will be followed.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will that public announcement include provision for the holders of Italian bonds to get their money?

Mr. Jay: Yes. It will explain to them what steps they should take to get their claims satisfied.

Crown Film Unit (Employees)

Mr. Benn Levy: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether a sifting of the employees of the Crown Film Unit is being initiated in accordance with the Government's recently announced policy.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The staff in this establishment are not within the scope of the Prime Minister's statement of 15th March.

Industrial Production (Communists)

Major Beamish: asked the Economic Secretary to the Treasury if he will call for and publish the evidence which the chairman of the South-West Regional Board for Industry has, that Communists are trying to undermine the will to work and that production has been slowed down by them.

Mr. Jay: I am making inquiries into this. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member would put down a Question in about 10 days' time.

Major Beamish: Since the Prime Minister has stated clearly that it is the view of the Government that the loyalty of all Communists is suspect, may I ask the Minister whether it is accepted by the Government that it is incumbent upon them to inform the public of the real aims and methods of British Communism?

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that this man was challenged to produce one iota of evidence, that he has utterly failed to do so, and that he is incapable of doing so?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make in Business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir.
Monday, 19th April—Supply (10th Allotted Day). It is proposed to move


Mr. Speaker out of the Chair, on going into Committee of Supply on Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments, 1948. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) is calling attention to Export Targets for 1948.
Tuesday and Wednesday, 20th and 2rst April—We shall make further progress in Committee with the Representation of the People Bill.
Thursday, 22nd April—Second Reading of the Monopoly (Inquiry and Control) Bill and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Friday, 23rd April—Second Reading of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Bill [Lords], and, if there is time, Report and Third Reading of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.

Mr. Churchill: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any progress in coming to a conclusion about the Foreign Affairs Debate the week after next, and has he considered at all the suggestion which we have ventured to make that, at 7.30 p.m. on the second day of the Debate, we should switch to the Motion on European Union, which has so much support in all parts of the House and which stands on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay), so that these matters can be discussed?

Mr. Morrison: On the last point, that is the first I have heard of that suggestion, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I make no comment. On the first point, I have had a word with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and I am sorry I cannot give a definitive answer at the moment. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend is about to leave for Paris, but, directly he comes back, which will be next week, we will hope that some conversations can take place, either through the usual channels or with the right hon. Gentleman, with a view to fixing a date.

Mr. Churchill: We certainly should hope that a Debate on Foreign Affairs could take place in the last week of this month.

Mr. Morrison: I will do my best to fall in with the right hon. Gentleman's wishes.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Will the right hon. Gentleman recollect that there are, standing on the Order Paper, two Government Motions that relate to new Standing Orders for Scottish Business. They have been there since January. Is there any immediate prospect of their being taken, in order that advantage may be taken of them this year?

Mr. Morrison: I am anxious to dispose of the Motions regarding Standing Orders affecting Scottish Business, which I understand are generally agreeable. It is a matter of time. I am afraid we cannot fix a date immediately, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman can take it that we will fix it, at a fairly early date, and as soon as ever we can.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he is yet briefed on the subject of the emoluments of the Lord High Commissioner?

Mr. Morrison: I am so sorry to disappoint the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I have overlooked it for the time being.

Mrs. Manning: Coming back to the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, when my right hon. Friend is considering the possibility of using the last few hours of the second day of the Foreign Affairs Debate for a discussion of the Motion standing on the Order Paper on European Union, will he consider the possibility of extending the time on that day? Surely, two-and-a-half hours is not going to be anything like sufficient for a discussion on that important matter?

Mr. Morrison: If I may say so, the hon. Lady is premature. I have not yet indicated whether the Motion itself will be discussed or taken up in the general Debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made a suggestion, which I promised to consider, but I have not yet committed myself.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: In view of the importance of keeping in close touch with back bench opinion on certain matters, will my right hon. Friend reconsider his earlier opinion and find time for a discussion of the Motion standing in my name on petrol for blood sports?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid not.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Hardman): May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to an inaccuracy in today's HANSARD? A Division took place last night—

Hon. Members: Stand at the Box.

Mr. Hardman: I did not think the occasion was worthy of a statement from the Despatch Box. I merely wish to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to an inaccuracy in today's HANSARD. A Division took place last night on the death penalty, and I am recorded as having voted in favour of the Government, when I obeyed instructions and abstained.

Mr. Churchill: May we have this uncertainty cleared up? The hon. Gentleman says he is recorded as having voted in favour of the Government, but the Government had no opinion on this matter, except that expressed personally by the Home Secretary. Could he assure us whether we should be misrepresenting him if we said that he was voting for or against the Government?

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman made it clear that, in the official record, he is not down as voting, but, in HANSARD, he is put down as having voted. It was, I understand, a mistake

of his name for that of an hon. Member who sits for an Ulster Division.

Earl Winterton: Are we not entitled, when we have a personal explanation, to ask what it is all about? The hon. Gentleman made use of a most extraordinary phrase in which he solemnly informed you, Mr. Speaker, and the House that he "obeyed instructions." Whose instructions? Surely, we are entitled to ask what that means? Here we have a Member of the Government, on a first-class subject, abstaining from supporting his Government and saying that he did so because he was obeying instructions. What does he mean by that?

Mr. Speaker: It is not my business to answer the questions of the noble Lord. That is the hon. Member's affair.

Mr. Churchill: With very great respect, may I say when an hon. Member asks for the indulgence of the House, as he is quite entitled to do, to make a personal explanation, surely the House should also claim some indulgence in asking that that explanation should be clear?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

REPORT [6th April]

Resolutions reported.

[For particulars of Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1948; c. 79–109.]

First Resolution [Tobacco (Customs)] read a Second time.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution" put forthwith pursuant to the Standing Order (Ways and Means Resolutions).

The House divided, Ayes, 238; Noes, 114.

Division No. 125.
AYES
[3.40 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Forman, J. C.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Gallacher, W.
Marquand, H. A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Alpass, J. H.
Gilzean, A.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mikardo, Ian


Attewell, H. C.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Millington, Wing-Comdr, E R


Austin, H. Lewis
Grenfell, D. R.
Monslow, W.


Awbery, S. S.
Grey, C. F.
Moody, A. S.


Ayles, W. H.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Morley, R.


Bacon, Miss A
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Balfour, A.
Gunter, R. J.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Barton, C.
Guy, W. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham E.)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mort, D. L.


Belcher, J. W.
Hale, Leslie
Moyle, A.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Murray, J. D,


Benson, G.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Nally, W.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Nichol, Mrs M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Hardman, D. R.
Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)


Binns, J.
Hardy, E. A.
Noel-Baker, Capt F. E. (Brentford)


Blackburn, A. R.
Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)
Oliver, G. H.


Blenkinsop, A.
Harrison, J.
Orbach, M.


Blyton, W. R.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Paget, R. T.


Bottomley, A. G.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Herbison, Miss M.
Parker, J.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hicks, G.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Bramall, E. A.
Hobson, C. R.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Holman, P
Pearson, A.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
House, G.
Perrins, W.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hoy, J.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hubbard, T.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Burden, T. W.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Pryde, D. J.


Byers, Frank
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Randall, H. E


Chater, D.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Ranger, J.


Chetwynd, G. R
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Rankin, J.


Cocks, F. S.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Reeves, J.


Coldrick, W.
Janner, B.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Collick, P.
Jay, D. P. T.
Richards, R.


Collindridge, F
Jeger, G. (Winchester}
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Collins, V. J.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Colman, Miss G. M
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Royle, C.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Scollan, T.


Cook, T. F.
Keonan, W.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Kenyon, C.
Segal, Dr. S.


Cove, W. G.

Sharp, Granville


Crawley, A.
Key, C. W.
Shaweron, Rt. Hn. Sir H, (St. Helens)


Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr, E.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Kinley, J.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Daines, P.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lea, F. (Hulme)
Skinnard, F. W.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leonard, W.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lever, N. H.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Deer, G.
Levy, B. W.
Snow, J. W.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lipson, D. L.
Solley, L. J.


Debbie, W.
Lipton, Lt.-Cot. M.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dodds, N. N.
Lyne, A. W.
Soskice, Sir Frank


Driberg, T. E. N.
McAdam, W.
Sparks, J. A.


Dumpleton, C. W
McEntee, V. La T
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Stokes, R. R.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
McGovern, J.
Stubbs, A. E.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Mack, J. D.
Swingler, S.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Sylvester, G. O.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Symonds, A. L.


Fairhurst, F.
McKinlay, A. S.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Farthing, W. J.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Fernyhough, E.
McLeavy, F.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Follick, M.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Thurtle, Ernest


Foot, M. M.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Tiffany, S




Timmons, J.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Williams, D. J (Neath)


Titteringlon, M. F
Watkins, T. E.
Williams, J. L. (Kolvingrove)


Tolley, L.
Watson, W. M
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Weitzman, D.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Turner-Samuels, M.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Wise, Major F. J


Vernon, Maj. W. F
Westwood. Rt. Hon. J
Wyatt, W.


Viant, S. P.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Wadsworth, G.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Walkden, E.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A B



Walker, G. H.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Mr. Simmons and Mr. Wilkins.




NOES


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Gridley, Sir A
Osborne, C.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Grimston, R. V.
Peaks, Rt. Hon O.


Astor, Hon. M.
Harden, J. R. E.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Price-White, Lt-.Gol. D


Bennett, Sir P.
Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V.
Raikes, H. V.


Bores, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Bossom, A. C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bower, N.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hurd, A.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Robinson, Roland


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jarvis, Sir J.
Ropner, Col. L.


Challen, C.
Keeling, E. H.
Sanderson, Sir F


Channon, H.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Smithers, Sir W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S
Langford-Holt, J.
Snadden, W. M.


Clarke, Col. R. S
Lennox-Boyd, A. T
Spearman, A. C. M


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Linstead, H. N.
Spence, H. R.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Crookshank, Capt Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Stoddart-Scott, Col, M.


Crosthwaitt-Eyre, Col. O. E
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Crowder, Capt. John E
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Teeling, William


De la Bere, R.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Dodds-Parker, A D
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F


Drayson, G. B.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Touche, G. C.


Drove, C.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Turton, R. H.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Vane, W. M. F.


Duthie, W. S.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Eccles, D. M.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Mellor, Sir J.
While, Sir D. (Fareham)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gage, C.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
Nicholson, G.
York, C.


Gammans, L. D.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Odey, G. W.



Gomme-Duncan, Col A
O'Neill, Rt. Hon Sir H
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant, Lady
Orr-Ewing, I. L
Commander Agnew and




Mr. Studholme.


Second, Third and Fourth Resolutions agreed to.

Fifth Resolution [Beer (Excise)] read a Second time.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said

Resolution" put forthwith pursuant to the Standing Order (Ways and Means Resolutions).

The House divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 115.

Division No. 126.
AYES.
[3.47 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Bing, G. H. C
Cocks, F. S.


Allen, A. C (Bosworth)
Binns, J.
Coldrick, W


Allen, Scholefield (Crtwe)
Blackburn, A. R
Collick, P.


Alpass, J. H.
Blenkinsop, A.
Collindridge, F


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Blyton, W. R.
Collins, V. J.


Attewell, H. C.
Bottomley, A. G.
Colman, Miss G. M


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W
Comyns, Dr L


Awbery, S. S.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Cook, T. F


Ayles, W. H.
Brad dock, T. (Mitcham)
Corlett, Dr. J


Bacon, Miss A
Bramall, E A.
Cove, W. G


Balfour, A.
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Crawley, A


Barstow, P. G.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S


Barton, C.
Brown, George (Belper)
Crossman, R. H S


Bechervaise, A. E.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Daines, P.


Belcher, J. W.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Burden, T. W.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Benson, G.
Byers, Frank
Deer, G.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Chetwynd, G. R
Dobbie, W




Dodds N. N.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Scott-Elliot, W


Driberg, T. E. N
Leonard, W.
Segal, Dr. S.


Dumpleton, C. W
Levy, B. W.
Sharp, Granville


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lipson, D. L.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Lyne, A. W.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
McAdam, W
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
McEntee, V. La T
Skinnard, F. W.


Fairhurst, F.
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Farthing, W. J.
McGovern, J.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Fernyhough, E.
Mack, J. D.
Snow, J. W.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McKay, J. (Waltsend)
Solley, L. J.


Follick, M.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Fool, M. M.
McKinlay, A. S.
Soskice, Sir Frank


Forman, J. C.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Sparks, J. A.


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
McLeavy, F.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Gilzean, A.
Mallalieu, J. P. W (Huddersfield)
Stokes, R. R.


Glanville, J. E, (Consett)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Swingler, S.


Greenwood, A, W. J. (Heywood)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Grenfell, D. R.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Grey, C. F.
Marquand, H. A.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Gunter, R. J.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Guy, W. H.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mikardo, Ian
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Hale, Leslie
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R
Thurtle, Ernest


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Monstow, W.
Tiffany, S.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Titterington, M. F


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Tolley, L.


Hardman, O. R
Morrison, Rt. Hon- H. (Lewisham, E.)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Hardy, E. A.
Mort, D. L.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)
Moyle, A.
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Harrison, J.
Murray, J. D.
Viant, S. P.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Nally, W.
Wadsworth, G.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E (Bradford, N)
Walker, G. H.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Micholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislshurst)


Herbison, Miss M.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F E. (Brentford)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Hicks, G.
Oliver, G. H
Watkins, T. E.


Holman, P.
Orbach, M.
Watson, W. M.


House, G.
Paget, R. T.
Weitzman, D.


Hoy, J.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Hubbard, T.
Parker, J.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, A
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Perrins, W.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F
Willey, D. G (Cleveland)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Janner, B.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Jay, D. P. T.
Pryde, D. J.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Randall, H. E.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Jeger,, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Ranger, J.
Wise, Major F. J


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Rankin, J,
Woodburn, A.


Keenan, W.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Wyatt, W.


Kenyon, C.
Richards, R.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Key, C. W.
Rogers, G. H. R
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Kingdom, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Royle, C.



Kinley, J.
Savory, Prof. D. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J
Scollan, T.
Mr. Simmons and Mr. Wilkins.




NOES.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Jeffreys, General Sir G.


Astor, Hon. M.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Waiter
Keeling, E. H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Kerr, Sir J. Graham


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Langford-Holt, J.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Gage, C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Bower, N.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
Linstead, H. N.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Gammans, L. D.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Lloyd, Setwyn (Wirral)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Low, A. R. W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Grant, Lady
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Challen, C.
Gridley, Sir A.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Channon, H.
Grimston, R. V.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Harden, J. R E.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Han, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Manningham-Buller, R. E


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V.
Marsden, Capt. A.


Crockshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.F.C
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Hollis, M. C.
Mellor, Sir J.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Moody, A. S.


De la Bere, R.
Hurd, A.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.


Dodds-Parker, A, D.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)


Drayson, G. B.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Drewe, C.
Jarvis, Sir J.
Molt Radclyffe, C. E.







Nicholson, G.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Vane, W. M. F.


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Robinson, Roland
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Odey, G. W.
Ropner, Col. L.
Walkden, E.


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
Sanderson, Sir F
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Scott, Lord W.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Osborne, C.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
Smithers, Sir W
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Pitman, I. J.
Snadden, W. M.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Spence, M. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
York, C.


Price-White, Lt-Col. D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Raikes, H. V.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)



Ramsay, Maj. S.
Teeling, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.
Commander Agnew and


Raid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Touche, G. C.
Mr. Studholme.


Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Turton, R. H.



Sixth Resolution agreed to.

Seventh Resolution [Spirits (Excise)] read a Second time.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said

Resolution" put forthwith pursuant to the Standing Order (Ways and Means Resolutions).

The House divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 113.

Division No. 127.]
AYES.
3.58 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Dodds, N. N.
Keenan, W.


Allen, A, C. (Bosworth)
Donovan, T.
Kenyon, C.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Key, C. W.


Alpass, J. H.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Kingdom, Sqn.-Ldr. E


Attewell, H. C.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Kinley, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J


Austin, H. Lewis
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Awbery, S. S.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Leonard, W.


Ayles, W. H.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lever, N. H.


Bacon, Miss A.
Fairhurst, F.
Levy, B. W.


Balfour, A.
Farthing, W. J
Lipson, D. L.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Fernyhough, E.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Barstow, P. G.
Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E.)
Lyne, A. W.


Barton, C.
Follick, M.
McAdam, W.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Foot, M. M.
McEntee, V. La T.


Belcher, J. W.
Forman, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
McGovern, J.


Benson, G.
Gilzean, A.
Mack, J. D.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Bing, G. H. C.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Binns, J.
Grenfell, D. R.
McKinlay, A. S.


Blackburn, A. R.
Grey, C. F.
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Blenkinsop, A.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
McLeavy, F.


Blyton, W. R.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Mallalieu, J. P. W (Huddersfield)


Bottomley, A. G.
Gunter, R. J.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W.
Guy, W. H.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hale, Leslie
Marquand, H. A.


Bramall, E. A.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hamitton, Lieut.-Col. R
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Mikardo, Ian


Brown, George (Belper)
Hardman, D. R.
Millingion, Wing-Comdr. E R


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hardy, E. A.
Monslow, W.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T
Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ)
Moody, A. S.


Burden, T. W.
Harrison, J.
Morley, R.


Byers, Frank
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Chater, D.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Chetwynd, G. R
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Morrison, Rt. Hon- H. (Lewisham, E)


Cocks, F. S.
Herbison, Miss M
Mort, D. L.


Coldrick, W.
Hicks, G.
Moyle, A.


Collick, P.
Holman, P
Murray, J. D


Collindridge, F
House, G.
Nally, W.


Collins, V. J.
Hoy, J.
Nlchol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N)


Colman, Miss G. M
Hubbard, T.
Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)


Comyns, Dr. L
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Cook, T. F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Oliver, G. H.


Corlett, Dr. J
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, M.


Cove, W. G
Hynd, H. (Hackney, G.)
Paget, R. T.


Crawley, A.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Grossman, R. H. S.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Parker, J.


Dairies, P.
Janner, B.
Paton, Mrs F. (Rushcliffe)


Davies, Hayon (St. Patient, S. W)
Jay, D. P. T.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Pearson, A.


Deer, G.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Perrms, W.


Debbie, W.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Platts-Mills, J F E




Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W)
Wadsworth, G


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Snow, J. W.
Walkden, E.


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Solley, L. J.
Walker, G. H.


Pryde, D. J.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Randall, H. E
Soskice, Sir Frank
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Ranger, J.
Sparks, J. A.
Watkins, T. E.


Rankin, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Watson, W. M.


Reeves, J.
Stokes, R. R
Weitzman, D


Raid, T. (Swindon)
Swingler, S.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Richards, R.
Sylvester, G. O
While, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Rogers, G. H. R.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B


Royle, C.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Scollan, T.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Willey, D. G. (Cleveland)


Scott-Elliot, W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Segal, Dr. S.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Shackleton, E. A. A
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, W. R. (Helton)


Sharp, Granville
Tiffany, S.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Timmons, J.
Wise, Major F. J.


Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Titterington, M. F.
Woodburn, A.


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Tolley, L.
Wyatt, W.


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Skinnard, F. W.
Vernon, Maj. W. F



Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Viant, S. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Simmons and Mr. Wilkins.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Harden, J. R. E
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Astor, Hon. M.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Price-White, Lt-.Col. D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V.
Raikes, H. V.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Boles, Lt-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Bossom, A. C.
Hollis, M. C.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Bower, N.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hard, A.
Robinson, Roland


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm, Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Ropner, Col. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Sanderson, Sir F.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jarvis, Sir J.
Scott, Lord W.


Challen, C.
Jeffreys, General Sir G
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W


Channon, H.
Keeling, E. H.
Smithers, Sir W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Snadden, W. M.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H
Spence, W. R.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Langford-Holt, J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Lennox-Boyd. A, T.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Linstead, H. N.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Studholme, H. G.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Teeling, William


De la Bere, R.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Dodds-Parker, A. D
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thorp, Brigadier R, A. F.


Drayson, G. B.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Touche, G. C.


Drewe, C.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Turton, R. H.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Vane, W. M. F.


Duthie, W. S.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Mellor, Sir J.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gage, C.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
Morrison, Rt, Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gommans, L. D.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
York, C.


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Odey, G. W.



Grant, Lady
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
TELLERS EOR THE NOES:


Gridley, Sir A.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O
Major Conant and


Grimston, R. V.
Pitman, I. J.
Major Ramsay.


Eighth to Thirty-first Resolutions agreed to.

Thirty-second Resolution [Special Contribution] read a Second time.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said

Resolution" put forthwith pursuant to the Standing Order (Ways and Means Resolutions).

The House divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 133.

Division No. 128.]
AYES.
[4.10 p.m


Acland, Sir Richard
Anderson, A. (Motherwort)
Awbery, S. S.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Attewell, H. C.
Ayles, W. H.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Bacon, Miss A.


Alpass, J. H.
Austin, H. Lewis
Balfour, A.




Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Hale, Leslie
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Barstow, P. G.
Halt, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Perrins, W.


Barton, C.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Belcher, J. W.
Hardman, D. R
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Hardy, E. A.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Benson, G.
Harrison, J.
Pryde, D. J.


Beswick, F.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Randall, H. E


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Ranger, J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Rankin, J.


Binns, J.
Herbison, Hiss M.
Reeves, J.


Blackburn, A. R
Hicks, G.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Blenkinsop, A
Holman, P
Richards, R.


Blyton, W. R
House, G.
Rogers, G. H. R


Boardman, H.
Hoy, J.
Royle, C.


Bottomley, A. G.
Hubbard, T.
Scollan, T.


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Scott-Elliot, W.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Segal, Dr. S.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Shackleton, E. A A


Bramall, E. A.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Sharp, Granville


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon, G. A.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Brown, George (Belper)
Janner, B.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Jay, D P. T.
Silverman, S. S (Nelson)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Simmons, C. J.


Bullock, Capt M
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Burden, T. W.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Skinnard, F. W.


Chater, D
Keenan, W.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Chetwynd, G. R
Kenyon, C.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Cocks, F. S.
Key, C. W.
Snow, J. W.


Coldrick, W
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E
Solley, L. J.


Collick, P.
Kinley, J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Collindridge, F.
Lawson, Rt Hon. J.
Soskice, Sir Frank


Collins, V. J.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Sparks, J. A.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Leonard, W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Lever, N. H.
Stokes, R. R.


Cook, T. F
Levy, B. W.
Sylvester, G. O.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Corlett, Dr. J
Lipson, D. L.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Cove, W. G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Crawley, A.
Lyne, A. W
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Cripps, Rt. Hon Sir S
McAdam, W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Crossman, R. H S.
McEntee, V. La T
Tiffany, S.


Daines, P.
McGhee, H. G.
Timmons, J.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W)
McGovern, J
Titterington, M. F


Davies, R J. (Westhoughton)
Mack, J. D.
Tolley, L.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McKinlay, A. S.
Tomlinson, Rt Hon. G


Deer, G.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Debbie, W.
McLeavy, F.
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Dodds, N. N
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H
Viant, S. P.


Donovan, T.
Mallalieu, J P. w. (Huddersfield)
Walkden, E.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Walker, G. H.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Marquand, H. A
Watkins, T. E.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Watson, W. M.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Weitzman, D.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Mikardo, Ian
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Fairhurst, F.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Farthing, W. J.
Monstow, W
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Fernyhough, E.
Moody, A. S
Whiteley, Rt. Hon, W.


Field, Capt. W. J.
Morley, R.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Wilkins, W. A.


Follick, M.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Foot, M. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Forman, J. C
Mort, D. L.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Movie, A.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Murray, J. D
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Gallacher, W.
Nally, W.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Gilzean, A.
Nichol. Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Wise, Major F. J.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Nicholls, H R. (Stratford)
Woodburn, A


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Haywood)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Wyatt, W.


Grenfell, D R.
Oliver, G. H
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Grey, C. F
Orbach, M.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Paring, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)



Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gunter, R. J.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Mr. Pearson and


Guy, W. H.
Parker, J.
Mr. Richard Adams.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Paton, Mrs F. (Rushcliffe)





NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Astor, Hon. M.
Bennett, Sir P.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Baldwin, A. E.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Bossom, A. C.







Bower, N.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Hurd, A.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hilhead)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr J. G.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Hutchison, Col, J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Buchan-Hepburn, P G T
Jarvis, Sir J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Byers, Frank
Jeffreys, General Sir G
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Challen, C.
Keeling, E. H.
Robinson, Roland


Channon, H.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Ropner, Col. L.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H
Sanderson, Sir F.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Langford-Holt, J.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Scott, Lord W.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Linstead, H. N.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lloyd,, Selwyn (Wirral)
Smithers, Sir W.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Low, A. R. W,
Snadden, W. M.


De la Bere, R.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Spearman, A. C. M


Dodds-Parker, A. D
McKie, J. H, (Galloway)
Spence, H. R.


Drayson, G. B.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Drewe, C.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M,


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Duthie, W. S.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Studholme, H. G.


Eccles, D. M.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Teeling, William


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Marples, A. E.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P M
Marshall, S, H. (Sutton)
Touche, G. C


Gage, C.
Mellor, Sir J.
Turton, R. H.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
Molson, A. H. E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Gammans, L. D.
Morris-Jones, Sir. H.
Wadsworth, G.


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Grant, Lady
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Gridley, Sir A.
Nicholson, G.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Grimston, R. V.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Harden, J. R. E.
Odey, G. W.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
York, C.


Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V.
Pitman, I. J.



Haughton, S. G.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Major Conant and


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Price-White, Lt-.Col. D.
Major Ramsay.


Hollis, M. C.
Raikes, H. V.



Question put and agreed to.

Sir Waldron Smithers: On a point of Order. There is a picture, Mr. Speaker, in St. Stephen's Hall which depicts one of your predecessors, the inscription of which reads:
Sir Thomas More, as Speaker of the House of Commons, in spite of Cardinal Wolsey's imperious demand, refuses to grant King Henry VIII a subsidy without due debate. 1523.
I wish to protest most strongly against the imperious refusal of this Government to allow a Debate on the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions.

Mr. Speaker: That is a decision of the House and not of the Government. The House has decided that matter.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund—

(a) of the sum of five hundred million pounds for the permanent annual charge for the National Debt for the current financial year, instead of the sum of three hundred and fifty-five million pounds;

(b) of such sums as fall to be issued therefrom by reason of the treating of the Defence Bonds and Savings Certificates issued by the Government of Palestine, and the money raised thereby, as securities issued, and money raised, under the National Loans Act, 1939, in the United Kingdom."

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS [13th April]

[For details of Resolutions see OFFICIAL REPORT for 13th April, 1948, c. 924 and 925.]

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions and upon the other Resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means and the Resolution reported from the Committee on Finance [Money] and agreed to this day, by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Glenvil Hall and Mr. Douglas Jay.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE (No. 2) BILL

"to grant certain duties, to alter other duties and to amend the law relating to the


National Debt and the Public Revenue, and to make further provision in con, nection with Finance," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 71.]

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL JUSTICE [MONEY] (No. 2)

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to abolish penal servitude, hard labour, prison divisions and sentence of whipping, to amend the law relating to the probation of offenders, and otherwise to reform existing methods and provide new methods of dealing with offenders and persons liable to imprisonment, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of any increase in the sums so payable under Section four of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1908, which is attributable to any provisions of the said Act of the present Session whereby persons charged with indictable offences who are acquitted or discharged, or whose appeal against conviction is allowed by the Court of Criminal Appeal or in whose favour an appeal to the House of Lords under Subsection (6) of Section one of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, is determined, may receive out of local funds costs incurred in the conduct of their defence or on appeal;
(b) of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in the conduct of research into the causes of delinquency and the treatment of offenders and matters connected therewith, and of such sums as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, direct to be paid towards the expenditure of any body or person approved by the Secretary of State in the conduct of such research."

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

NEW CLAUSE (Charge of housebreaking triable summarily.)

Section twenty-four of and the Second Schedule to the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, shall have effect as if there were included in the said Second Schedule, offences under twenty-six and twenty-seven of the Larceny Act, 1916, and where such an offence is dealt with summarily and it appears to the Court upon the evidence that the defendant did not complete the offence charged, but that he was guilty only of an attempt to commit the same, the charge shall not by reason thereof be dismissed but the Court shall be at liberty to convict the defendant of an attempt to commit the same, and thereupon that person shall be liable to be punished in the same manner as if he had been found guilty of the offence charged.—[Mr. Manningham-Buller.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Last night, after a Clause had been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), the Government accepted the addition to the Second Schedule of the Criminal Justice Act, of the offence of fraudulent conversion, with the result that that offence will become triable summarily. The object of this Clause is to make a further addition to that Schedule, and to provide that the offence of housebreaking and the committing of a felony and the offence of housebreaking with intent to commit a felony shall be triable summarily. Under the provisions of this Bill, by Clause 27, where a court comes to the conclusion that an individual's record is such that the punishment he should receive exceeds their powers, they may, after finding him guilty, commit him to trial.
One possible and probable consequence of that Clause will be that those with long records will, when they are charged, not consent to have their case tried summarily, but elect to go to trial, with the idea lurking in their minds that they may have a better chance of acquittal before a jury. If that view is well-founded, it appears to follow that the calendars of assizes and quarter sessions will become even more congested than at present. That is an additional reason why we should seek to make triable summarily offences of the nature which those with experience


of the workings of quarter sessions and assizes would say, in the vast majority of cases, could be tried summarily.
I do not wish to suggest that there are not certain cases of housebreaking which are of a very serious character in the alarm and disturbance they create to the community, but there are other cases where the housebreaking is purely of a trumpery nature; where, for instance, a young man comes before the police court charged with housebreaking and committing larceny, who, because that is the charge, is sent to quarter sessions where the case is disposed of quite speedily, and where he receives a sentence that could have been imposed by a court of summary jurisdiction.
I suggest that there is no harm in making the offence of housebreaking triable summarily. I further suggest that it would be an improvement to our criminal law to make the offence of attempted housebreaking also triable summarily. It is really nonsense that if a person merely tries to break in by cutting out a piece of wood from the door and does not steal anything, he has, under our existing law, to be sent for trial at quarter sessions or assizes on a charge of attempted housebreaking. Surely there is a strong case for adding that offence to the list of offences triable summarily. I believe that there is a big argument in favour of a greater degree of flexibility, so as to permit petty sessions to deal with housebreaking of a trumpery character, while preserving their power to commit to trial cases of a serious nature.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Gage: I beg to second the Motion.
In doing so, I wish to comment briefly on what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has said. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that, as he probably knows already, all the criminal courts in this country are greatly overburdened with work at the present time, and, therefore, it is most desirable, in the interests of justice and of having people tried speedily, to dispose of the comparatively minor offences in the lower courts, where they can be dealt with quickly.
As my hon. and learned Friend has said, many of the offences of housebreaking are of a most trivial character. Many

of them, however, are very serious, and I do not for one moment wish it to be thought that I am trying to detract from the seriousness of the determined effects of housebreaking, but others, particularly attempts to break into houses, committed by young boys, are quite trivial in character; the breaking of a window—a halfhearted, stupid attempt, which is foiled almost at once, or where the offender is caught almost at once. I submit that these are cases that could quite properly be dealt with by a bench of magistrates. I have always looked upon it as being somewhat of an anomaly in our criminal law that this sort of case should not be dealt with summarily. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept the new Clause.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): It is true that last night I accepted one and a half of the new Clauses moved by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), because I thought that he had demonstrated that it was desirable that those particular offences should be added to the Second Schedule of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925. When we come to housebreaking, I think that, especially in view of the present prevalence of that crime, it is not desirable that the same course should be pursued. Housebreaking is a crime which gives very considerable anxiety to a large number of people in suburban areas, particularly near London, where people almost divide themselves as among the burgled and the to-be burgled. I know, having been burgled seven times myself before I held this office, the effect that burglary and housebreaking has on the minds of the women folk of a household.
I should be very reluctant at the present time to do anything that indicated that this House regarded housebreaking as among the minor crimes. One has to trust, if one puts these offences into the Schedule, on the good sense of the petty sessional court as to whether a case goes forward to a higher court or not. While I have no doubt that there are occasions—I make a present of this to the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller)—when the prosecutor and the witnesses for the prosecution are somewhat relieved when a case does not go for trial, there are also occasions when a court, with very limited


powers in dealing with these cases, sometimes leaves on the minds of the prosecutor and the witnesses the feeling that the case has not been adequately dealt with.
I am all for relieving the senior courts, where it is possible to do so without injury to the standard of respect for the law of the country, of dealing with trivial cases, but I cannot accept this new Clause, because I think that, particularly at the present time, it is very desirable that we should continue to emphasise the seriousness with which the House regards the offences of housebreaking and of attempted housebreaking. I am not at all sure that what the hon. and learned Gentleman called a half-hearted attempt is something that should be regarded as trivial. I think that it is well to keep in the minds of the criminal classes, as well as in the minds of other people, the idea that this crime, with all the terror which it inflicts on a large number of people who never actually suffer from the depredations of the housebreaker, is regarded very seriously.

Mr. Mack: In view of the startling revelation which the Home Secretary has made of having been burgled on seven occasions, is that not calculated to give the impression that the Home Secretary can be burgled with impunity, and that joy and jubilation will be created as a consequence in the heart of the criminal classes? If he is so vulnerable as all that, surely adequate steps should be taken to protect him?

Mr. Ede: I was very careful to say that that happened before I was Home Secretary.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I did not seek to minimise in any way the offence of housebreaking. I suggest to the Home Secretary that, with the powers which the prosecution have, and will have, of indicating whether a case should be sent for trial or not, the risk of the serious cases being minimised in the public mind would not be very great if this Amendment were accepted. I would ask him to give further consideration to this matter. It was not discussed on the Committee stage, and it may be that with further consideration, he could go some way towards meeting us.

Mr. Ede: This is a subject which I have considered for some time, quite apart from

this Bill. I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of what I alluded to last night—the recent remarks made in a high judicial quarter that the way in which magistrates have used their discretion in dealing with these cases has sometimes been unsatisfactory. I will, of course, consider the matter. I always listen with great respect to the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman and of the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage), but it would be quite wrong of me to indicate that I thought that I ought to do this in the present Bill.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: think that the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) in commending this new Clause to us has raised a very important matter. It is perfectly true, of course, that some cases of housebreaking are trumpery, but this Clause does not distinguish between those attempts which are called trumpery and those attempts which may be very serious. This proposed Clause gives the court of summary jurisdiction both the duty and the right of passing the sentence. It is all very well for the hon. and learned Member to say that under Clause 27 of the Bill, the matter can be committed for sentence to quarter sessions, but this Clause vests in the court of summary jurisdiction the power to pass sentence. Supposing a case of attempted housebreaking to be committed by some person with a very bad record—a man who has not only attempted to commit housebreaking from time to time, but, in fact, has succeeded and has previously undergone a series of punishments—terms of imprisonment.
What are we going to do with a case of that kind? The sentence there may have to be a very serious one indeed. It may be penal servitude for many years, anything from three to 14 years according to the gravity of the case. Is it suggested that a matter of this fundamental and serious kind should be confided to a court of summary jurisdiction? Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Daventry could not intend that and yet it is a manifest consequence of the proposal that he is now making. Anyone who is concerned in the administration of criminal justice knows that the worst difficulty is not in trying these people, but of knowing what to do with them and what sort of punishment to


mete out to them. That is one of the most serious problems with which a court of quarter sessions and the judges who go on assizes have to deal.
The idea that the House should take that serious obligation out of the hands of the higher criminal courts and invest it in those sitting in courts of summary jurisdiction comes, I must say, as a matter of amazement to me. Knowing the hon. and learned Gentleman as I do, I am perfectly certain that if he gave this matter second thoughts he would not wish for that consequence in view of the serious and fundamental fact that the question of sentence is here involved and it may be, as it not infrequently is, that it is one of those cases where the person charged is a person with a very bad record, which the court in imposing its sentence has got to take into consideration. For these reasons I suggest that the House should not accept this new Clause.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I would ask the Home Secretary to consider this matter again. I entirely agree with what has been said about the anxiety caused by housebreaking and the seriousness of this offence. We all desire to do nothing to make people think lightly of that offence. I am not quite certain what will be the effect of this Clause. As I understand it, the court would have the option either of dealing summarily with a matter, of sending it for trial by the ordinary procedure or alternatively—I should like to have confirmation of this from the right hon. Gentlernan—under Clause 27 trying a case in the summary court and sending it for sentence to a higher court.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The proposed Clause we are now discussing imposes that obligation on the court. It confides to the court of summary jurisdiction the power of the justices to deal with sentence whatever the nature of the case or the record of the accused.

Mr. Lloyd: What I was suggesting was that there were certain alternatives. There is the alternative of dealing with it summarily or sending it for trial, or there is the other course of dealing with it summarily so far as the evidence is concerned and forwarding it for sentence to a higher court. From my own experience I will tell the right hon. Gentleman something of which he is perfectly well aware—the higher courts are absolutely clut-

tered up with matters at the present time. In many courts the administration of justice has almost been brought into contempt, because so much work has to be done and the sittings of courts are lengthy and held under great stress. If anything can be done to relieve the pressure on these courts it will be a good thing to do.
For the serious case there are still these two courses of sending for trial in the ordinary way or sending to the higher court for sentence. In the case of a first offence by a man with a clean record, and especially if it is a trivial offence, it could be properly met by hearing it at the summary court of jurisdiction. Take the analogy of larceny. In each case it has to be decided whether on a charge of larceny the accused is sent for trial or dealt with summarily. Some larcenies are trivial, some extremely serious and according to whether they are trivial or serious it is decided which course should be taken. No harm would be done if the same course were adopted in regard to housebreaking.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: Naturally, legal men, when discussing questions of this kind, talk about the higher courts being cluttered up with work and not being able to get ahead with the job, but what concerns the poor criminal who has been sent forward for trial is how long a wait he has in the cells before his case is brought to trial. That is something that has to be taken into account, and if we can devise a method of expediting the trials of many of these people who are arrested and held in confinement, so much the better. It is desirable that many of these cases should be dealt with summarily.
The remarks made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) have no bearing on this question and are quite irrelevant. If the type of criminal to whom he referred came before a court of summary jurisdiction, that criminal would be passed on to a higher court. I thought that legal men would have known a simple proposition of that kind. I have been before a court of summary jurisdiction and was transferred to a higher court because the court of summary jurisdiction would not deal with such a hardened case as myself.
There is one thing to which I wish to draw the Home Secretary's attention. He has already referred to it, and it is very important. He mentioned that a lot of housebreaking had taken place in suburban London. It is not only in suburban London that housebreaking takes place, but all over the country. In my own area there is a lot of housebreaking in working-class houses. I have a feeling that when hon. Members opposite talk about trivial and serious cases of housebreaking, they think that if some youth breaks into a working-class home and takes £5 worth of goods it is trivial, but that if someone breaks into a bourgeois house and takes £500 worth of goods, it is serious.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Nonsense.

Mr. Gallacher: If it is nonsense, what is trivial and what is serious? If someone breaks into a house, why should there be a difference about it? Why should one kind of housebreaking be trivial and one serious? Is it judged on the amount of goods taken? From the point of view of the occupants of a working-class house, the breaking into that house and the loss of £5 may be much more serious than the breaking into a larger house and the loss of £500. What determines trivial and serious? The Home Secretary was quite right to make it clear that there can be no question of considering housebreaking as trivial in any circumstances.
It is a serious offence and if those who introduced this new Clause had refrained from raising this question of trivial and serious types of housebreaking, a better case could be made for the new Clause. While agreeing with the attitude the Home Secretary has adopted towards housebreaking, I would ask him to consider accepting something else, if this new Clause is not acceptable, to expedite the treatment of these chaps who are charged with housebreaking, so that in many cases—where, for instance, it is a first offence—they can be dealt with in, a court of summary jurisdiction instead of being passed to a higher court. There are too many men and women who are kept waiting for long weeks in prison before their case comes to trial, and for that reason I ask the Home Secretary seriously to consider doing something to expedite matters so that these people may be more quickly brought to trial.

Earl Winterton: I should like to say a word in support of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), who moved this new Clause; but, I rise mainly for the purpose of calling attention to the characteristically offensive observation by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). If it had been made by anybody but him, and if he were taken seriously in any quarter of the House instead of only as a joke, I should have raised a point of Order. He made the most wounding accusation possible against hon. Members on this side of the House and the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), sitting beside him. He said that we did not in the least mind what happened to poor people and that it was only the rich people who concerned us. There the voice from Moscow speaks. There the hon. Member follows the dictates of his masters in making himself personally offensive to other people in the House of Commons.

Mr. Gallacher: Would the very angry noble Lord who is accusing me be good enough to tell the House what is trivial housebreaking and what is serious housebreaking?

Earl Winterton: That matter has been fully explained in the previous speeches. I can assure the hon. Member that I am not in the least angry. Nobody could be angry with him—only sorry for anybody who makes himself such a pitiful fool as he does. I take the greatest exception to the insolent attack which he has made upon this side of the House.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of Order. Is an hon. Member allowed, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to call another hon. Member a fool?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The expression is not in the very best of taste, but it also is not one the use of which has been decided to be unparliamentary.

General Sir George Jeffreys: This matter has already been exhaustively dealt with, but I would like to put one point to the House. At the end of last week I was approached by a very experienced chairman of quarter sessions, with his clerk. They urged that


some such provision as this should be introduced into the Bill, because of the overcrowding of the calendar at quarter sessions. They mentioned cases of petty housebreaking, very slight cases indeed. They were technically housebreaking, possibly of a house being entered by quite a young man, sometimes in a spirit of bravado. Although a man who had broken into the house had taken nothing at all, the case was usually committed for trial. Such cases were crowding the calendar at quarter sessions.
I was also told that the quarter sessions in the county were now taking more than a week, with two courts sitting, and for very long hours. Many of the cases might quite well have been dealt with by benches of magistrates. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must leave a certain amount to the discretion of magistrates, but under Clause 27 magistrates will be empowered, if they find a man to be an old and hardened offender, to decide that he should not be dealt with by them but should be sent to a higher court. I appeal to the Minister to consider this question afresh and to see whether it is not possible to leave more discretion to courts of summary jurisdiction to deal with cases of attempted housebreaking and of what I might call petty breaking.

Mr. Weitzman: I hope that at least one voice will be raised in support of the Clause from this side of the House. The only objection made by the Home Secretary was that housebreaking was a very serious offence. That statement shows very great distrust of the ability of magistrates to deal with such cases. Anyone who practises in the courts knows that there are hundreds of trumpery cases, technically of housebreaking, in which, with all the solemnity of the law, the prisoner is committed for trial. Then there may be a long time of waiting before he is tried, and great injustice is suffered. The proposed new Clause should receive support. I cannot see why the Home Secretary cannot accept it.

Mr. Ede: I will give this matter consideration. I am not unimpressed by the remarks that have been made. It may be that in my sufferings as a burgled person, I am inclined to some bias in the matter. I am sure that I shall carry the House with me when I say that what are some-

times called petty burglaries create a state of terror in a neighbourhood of which the law must take account. The idea that such cases can be disposed of in the same way as a drunk and disorderly case is disposed of, whether or not it has been called petty or trivial, gives quite a wrong impression in the minds of citizens in whom we have to maintain confidence in the administration of the law in these difficult times.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: With the leave of the House I would like to say one further word. We appreciate the caution which the Home Secretary is exercising to prevent the offence of housebreaking from scaring the general public. We are with him in that matter and welcome his attitude. I am sure, however, that it would facilitate the administration of justice if we made some provision of this character. These Sections of the Larceny Act not only cover housebreaking but involve committing for trial even a youth who breaks into a warehouse or a shop and steals fivepence worth of goods. As the right hon. Gentleman has very fairly said that he will look further into this matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Service of copy of indictment.)

No person shall be tried upon indictment unless seven days at least before the trial there has been served upon him personally or upon his solicitors a copy of the indictment upon which he is to be arraigned or unless he waives his right to have a copy of such indictment so served. Provided that the said period of seven days may be reduced to a shorter period if the person to be tried consents to such reduction.—[Mr. Manningham-Buller.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept this Clause, which meets a very real need. In Committee he undertook to consider a new Clause on these lines before the Report stage. I am sorry not to have seen one in his name upon the Order Paper. I hope that that fact will not prevent him accepting the new Clause which I am proposing. The argument for it may be put quite shortly, and I hope it will have the support of all hon. Members who have practical


experience of the administration of our criminal courts.
The Attorney-General will probably Agree that he has had the experience which I have had of defending an accused person, of being briefed, and knowing what the charges are according to the brief, and then being suddenly faced with an indictment read out and having to meet additional charges of a new character, charges added by the prosecution at the last moment, giving no opportunity to the defence to consider what course of action should be taken. That can be done under the present law, and is done. I think it is wrong that an accused person who is standing his trial at quarter sessions or assizes should not know, before the trial starts, exactly what charges he will have to face, or that his advisers should not know exactly what charges will have to be faced so that they may give the accused the best possible advice on the course he should pursue. Those of us who have conducted cases for the defence in criminal courts have experienced the difficulties connected with the sudden addition of charges to an indictment.
5.0 p.m.
We suggest in this Clause that a copy of the indictment should be served personally on the accused, or upon his solicitors, at least seven days before the trial commences. I am not particularly attached to the seven days. If the Minister says he would prefer five, six, 10 or 14 days it is immaterial to me, but I suggest that the accused ought to have at least five days' notice. That, I think, should be the minimum. It may be said, "Sometimes a man is committed by the committing magistrates for trial just before the assizes or quarter sessions are due to open, and if he is to be tried there time will not permit of giving seven days' notice." That is an argument which, from an administrative point of view, must be considered. We do not want a man to miss that assize or quarter sessions and have to be taken to another part of the country at considerable expense and inconvenience, or have his case postponed to a subsequent assize or quarter sessions.
We have provided that the seven days' notice can be waived by the accused. Normally, it would be to the advantage of the accused to waive it if it meant his

swifter trial, and he would not waive it except where the addition of further charges would put him in a difficulty. If the charges on which he had been committed were the same as those contained in the indictment, I believe that every accused person would be right to waive the fulfilment of the seven days' notice, so as to secure a swifter trial on the indictment against him. This Clause further provides that the accused may agree to a shorter period than seven days in appropriate cases. These qualifications upon the original period of seven days would facilitate the trial of a case where a man had been committed only a short time before the assizes or quarter sessions. At the same time the Clause provides for proper notice of what is contained in the indictment and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept it because I believe it will add considerably to the better administration of our criminal law.

Mr. Gage: I beg to second the Motion.
From such short experience as I have of this House, I am not unduly optimistic about anything, but I had hoped, following what the Home Secretary said in Standing Committee, that he would put down a new Clause on this point himself. I am disappointed to see that the right hon. Gentleman has not put down a new Clause which would embody the principles contained in the Clause we are now discussing. I am not wedded to the period of seven days; I think it could quite properly be shortened to five or four days. We are all familiar with cases where, quite often, the first time the accused person has known of a new count in the indictment has been when it has been read aloud in court by the clerk of assize. That is quite wrong, because there are all kinds of defences that can be founded on the way in which an indictment is drawn.
I remember an experience which I had—not an unusual experience, indeed, a typical experience. In a case in which I was prosecuting, for a fairly serious offence, I was given the indictment on arrival at court and I thought it wrongly drawn. I thought that the defence might object to it, so I did what everybody in my position would have done. I asked the clerk if the other side had seen it and he said, "No." The clerk seemed amazed that anyone should have seen the indictment before the trial. I said it must


be altered, and the indictment was handed back to the clerk with the ink still wet upon it. I am glad to say that my opponent did not know how near his client had been to escaping completely the consequences of what he had done. I am seeking to prevent that kind of thing from happening. I know that this Clause will cause a good deal of administrative inconvenience to people like clerks of the peace, but I do not think that is a reason we should not accept it. I know that at the County of London Sessions there will be great administrative difficulty, but at the same time I believe that the duty to the accused is much more important.

Mr. Ede: I listened to the discussion on this matter in Standing Committee, when I gave an undertaking that I would try to frame a new Clause for this stage. I have diligently carried out the promise I then gave, but I have been confronted with certain practical difficulties in the way of drafting a new Clause which would be enforceable. This new Clause would impose on the clerk of assize or clerk of peace the duty of serving on the accused, or his legal representative, a copy of the indictment. This is the practical difficulty: if a man has been committed for trial there is no trouble in finding him. The indictment can be served on him in prison, or maybe his legal representatives can be ascertained through the prison machinery, and they can receive a copy of the indictment. However, there are, of course, a number of people who will appear on an indictment at quarter sessions or the assizes but are not committed to prison and whose addresses can be obtained only from the clerk of the summary court, and if he failed to send along the address, it might very well be that the clerk of assize or the clerk of the peace might find that he had committed a breach of this requirement. This is a practical difficulty which I would like to get over. Another difficulty is the period of seven days. It may be that even where the address is known, the accused person may not be at that address on the day which would enable the clerk to comply with the requirements of this Clause. I therefore suggest that there are very serious practical difficulties in the way.
I am advised that under Rule 13 of the Rules made under the Indictments Act, 1915, it is the duty of the clerk of assize,

after a bill of indictment has been preferred and signed, to supply to the accused person, on request, a copy of the indictment free of charge. What I would like to do would be to get in touch with representative clerks of assize and clerks of the peace and see whether some method could be devised so that there would be provision whereby the indictment would be available on demand a certain number of days, in normal cases, before the opening of the assizes or quarter sessions.
That would meet the practical point and would avoid imposing this duty, which I suggest might in certain cases be almost impossible for the officers of the court to fulfil: it would enable the indictment to be known to the accused person in sufficient time for him to prepare his defence and he would not, therefore, have an indictment sprung on him at the court and find in it certain things which he did not imagine would be in the charge to be preferred against him. It might not be possible to have as long a period as seven days, but both hon. Gentlemen have intimated that they would be prepared to accept a lesser period if this could be made workable. I hope they will feel that the difficulties which I have encountered are really practical difficulties in the way of imposing a duty on the court in the exact terms of the words they have used. I will energetically pursue these consultations with the clerks I have mentioned, in the hope that I may be able to do something practical.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General reminds me that I used an unfortunate collection of words. I should not have said, "a certain number of days before the opening of the assizes." I should have said, "before the trial." Some assizes and, as we have been reminded this afternoon, even some quarter sessions, now last a considerable number of days, and the phrase I originally used might have imposed a quite impossible burden on the clerks. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) will feel that I have endeavoured to carry out the spirit of what I said in Committee. I am really concerned about this matter. I do desire that an accused person shall have every opportunity of knowing the charges he has to meet, and of knowing them in sufficient time to be able to have his defence properly prepared.
5.15 p.m.
There will, of course, be the case of the prisoner who is committed late, and no matter what number of days we put in, it may not always be possible for him to be informed within the prescribed limits. Generally speaking, it is to his advantage to have a speedy trial, but if he regards this point as important and elects to stand over to the next sessions or assizes, he should be able to make the choice. I hope the House will feel that I have endeavoured to meet the point behind this Clause. Between now and the consideration of the Bill in another place I will try to meet it.

Mr. Janner: The House will agree that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary appreciates the importance of the point involved in this Clause, but, on the other hand, I think the difficulties which he presented against the Clause are not quite as serious as he has been advised. There are methods by which intimation can be given to the person concerned in very many cases. There is no reason why notice or the document should not be sent by registered post to the last known address of the individual in the same way as it is done in many police court and sessional court matters. In a case where a solicitor has already been briefed, there is no reason why the particulars should not be sent to him.
I should like my right hon. Friend to realise that those who have had experience of these matters, including himself, find that in many instances the person is confronted with a circumstance with which it is a practical impossibility for him to deal on the spur of the moment or within a day or two. That being so, the statement that he will have available the indictment is not in itself sufficient. Many accused people would not be aware of the fact that the indictment was available, and the case might proceed without any possibility at all of a defence being put up. In those circumstances, I ask my right hon. Friend to try to devise some method by which his original undertaking might be put into more practical effect than by the suggestion he has offered, in order that a person who is to defend himself or is to be defended shall be in a position to understand what the

actual indictment or indictments against him are.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I would like briefly to reinforce the appeal which has been made to the right hon. Gentleman. I think the practical difficulties are surmountable. I have risen to ask the right hon. Gentleman not to be too much impressed by representations which he may receive from clerks of the peace and clerks of assize because—I say this at my peril—I think there is in this department a good deal of conservatism. The right hon. Gentleman should not be too overcome by representations to the contrary which he may receive. I am perfectly certain that in many cases there is substantial detriment to the administration of true justice in the fact that the accused does not know the actual charge against him.

Mr. Charles Williams: This seems to be a rather pleasant lawyers' afternoon tea party and I apologise most sincerely for joining in. I have listened to this Debate with very great interest and I listened with particular interest to the sympathetic point of view of the Home Secretary. If someone is to be tried and he does not know until the last minute what will be brought against him, it must put him to very great difficulty. It is all very well for high legal authorities to say that they sympathise with this person or that. We all sympathise, but looking at it from the point of view of giving the ordinary individual a fair deal, it is right that before he comes before these courts he should have fair notice of what will be brought up against him. It is astonishing to me that if someone came before the courts the officers in charge would not know his address sufficiently well to make contact with him on his indictment. It must be possible to overcome that, with the ingenuity which the Home Office have at their call at present. To sum up, my two points are—first, the address, and secondly, that all of us want the individual to know what is brought against him. May I emphasise once again—because it always gives me pleasure to say nice things rather than the reverse—how glad I was to see the Home Secretary in one of his kindly moods today?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: With the leave of the House, I will make one or two observations on what the right hon.


Gentleman indicated were his difficulties in accepting this Clause. He said, first, that there would be difficulty in many cases—not in every case—in serving a copy of the indictment on the accused person or upon his solicitors or, indeed, in knowing who were his solicitors. One appreciates that, but in the majority of cases that difficulty would not arise. What would happen in the cases where the difficulty arose would be that when a man surrendered to his bail he would then get a copy of the indictment, he would be told the reason it had not been served upon him before, and he would then be faced with the alternative either of having to insist on his right of notice of trial—which might mean that he would go to the end of the calendar of the assizes or the bottom of the list at the quarter sessions, or go on to another assize or another quarter session—or he would waive that right. If he waived that right, there is no consequence so far as the administration of justice is concerned; there is no delay. If he did not waive that right, presumably he would not waive it for the simple reason that the presence of this additional count really made no material difference. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think that over again, because it does not seem to me that the failure on the part of the clerks to serve a copy of the indictment would have any prejudicial effect.
Secondly, he referred to Rule 13, which deals with the supply of a copy of the indictment. That rule is largely a dead letter. Very often under the present organisation the indictment is not complete until a short period before the trial is due to commence. I suggest another possible way of dealing with it, because we are all trying to find a way in which this point can be dealt with. It is this: additional evidence cannot be adduced at the trial unless, after the man has been committed, after the depositions are completed, he is given notice of that additional evidence. It might be possible to provide that where a prosecution wanted to add a count to the indictment—something in addition to the charges on which the man had been committed—they should not be allowed to do that unless they had given notice to the accused in the same way as one gives notice of additional evidence. There is no period on additional evidence at the present time.

I am not sure that would operate, but I mention it in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider it.

Mr. Ede: By the leave of the House, I would like to say that I have listened to the various suggestions made, and they will all be taken into consideration. In regard to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner), I will say that I would endeavour to supply a copy of the indictment but I cannot undertake to supply understanding at the same time; that clearly must be for members of the legal profession to supply to their clients when they get the indictment. With regard to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), I have been associated with clerks of the peace for over 40 years, and I can assure him that I intend in these matters to apply to those who are helpful, who are public spirited—and I believe they are the great majority—and who desire to see the system of justice administered in their courts as perfect as possible, and who would desire to co-operate in the spirit shown in this House this afternoon. I will earnestly endeavour to do something in this matter in another place.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Disclosure of information to accused person.)

Where an information or complaint in writing is laid before the Court in accordance with the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848, or the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, or in accordance with some particular Act of Parliament in regard to some offence thereunder, such information or complaint as well as any documents exhibited thereto shall be fully disclosed to the accused person and such accused person shall be supplied on demand with copies thereof.—[Mr. Weitzman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Weitzman: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Hon. Members will be aware that under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848, an information is laid before the justices alleging that a person has committed an offence and a summons is issued on such information; if he does not appear a


warrant is issued. Under the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, a summons or warrant is issued on the information, but only where it is intended to issue a warrant is the information required to be on oath. The position, therefore, is that assuming a written information is laid, whether it is sworn or not, it contains the details on which the charge is made, whether the charge be by way of summons or warrant. It may well be that the magistrate who issued the summons, and who knows what is contained in the information, is the magistrate who will adjudicate on the matter; it may be that he is the person who will try the case to ascertain whether there is a prima facie case for committal of the person for trial by jury.
There are cases, and I suppose they are the rule where the contents of the information are disclosed, but there are cases where magistrates have refused to disclose the information. I venture to suggest that this House will accept the position that an accused person ought to know in detail what is alleged against him, and he ought to be in a position to be able to deal with any charge brought against him. If the information and any documents annexed are not disclosed, then I suggest that the citizen, in effect, is being accused upon a secret document which is being withheld from the court. Furthermore, the defence is in the position that it cannot cross-examine the mind of the magistrate because it does not know what is in his mind. Then there may be the case where a lying accuser gives evidence in the witness box contradicting the private story he has told to the magistrate who, on the information, issued the summons.
5.30 p.m.
Often it is only where that information is fully disclosed that cross-examination can be made in detail of witnesses in the witness box. It may well be that the magistrate has something in his mind of which the accused person knows nothing and that may prejudice the case from the start. If the average Englishman were told that a person in a foreign country was being accused on a secret document he would say, "It could not happen here," but it does happen here, and from my personal experience I know that there are cases where magistrates have refused to disclose the contents of an information to accused persons.
If one looks through the sections of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, or the Indictable Offences Act, one sees that the whole tenor of those Measures is that informations should be disclosed to accused persons, but nowhere is there a direct obligation laid on the court they they should be disclosed. Obviously, a strong case can be made out here, and I suggest that it is of the greatest importance to thousands of persons who pass through the conks, and who are affected by this matter. I hope the Government will see their way to give favourable consideration to this new Clause.

Mr. Royle: I beg to second the Motion.
In doing so there is no necessity for me to say a great deal about the new Clause in addition to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman). I feel there is some association between the new Clause which we have just been discussing, and this new Clause, and I hope my right hon. Friend will see his way to take the same view in regard to this matter. I believe the suggestions contained in this proposed new Clause are in accord with the best traditions of British justice. If the State, or private persons, prosecute a man, the accused should be entitled to know in full detail what is the case against him. I hope that today we may take this further step in the reform of British justice as a further manifestation of the essential fairness of our code of justice. I have not used many words, but my enthusiasm fur this proposal is none the less.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): The House will appreciate that it is not in every case that there is any information in writing to disclose. Although in summary cases there is an obligation to have an information in writing, the vast majority of informations are in fact almost identical with the summonses and in indictable offences there may be no written information to disclose at all. Under the Indictable Offences Act informations may, it is true, sometimes exist in writing, but I am told that very frequently in proceedings initiated by summons—and proceedings are initiated by summons in a very large proportion of cases—no written information exists. This new Clause does only apply and could only apply, to the minority of


cases in which there was a written information. It seems rather illogical that the right of the accused to know the information on which the charges against him have been based, if such a right should exist at all, should depend on the fortuitous circumstance whether such information exists in writing, or not.
No doubt the real question which the House will wish to consider is whether any such right should be given in any case, even in those where written informations do exist, to the accused to have it disclosed to him. The great objection, it seems to us, is that to provide the accused with a copy of the written information in advance of the trial would necessarily involve disclosing to him, not only the general nature of the evidence upon which the charges against him were based, but also the names and addresses of possible witnesses. That, of course, would enable unscrupulous persons—and there are such persons—to attempt to get in touch with those potential witnesses before their evidence has come to be given and to seek to induce them in one way or another to alter their stories.
I do not want to go into the matter in detail, but only recently there was a very important case in which the name of a witness slipped out in the preliminary proceedings, before the witness had come to give his evidence, in which the witness altered his story considerably at the magistrate's court, and disappeared before the trial. That is the sort of danger which might arise if some time in advance of the day on which he comes to give evidence his name and the substance of what it is thought he is likely to say has to be disclosed to the other side.
In view of those dangers it seems difficult to say that the accused must be given in advance, not the evidence upon which he is going to be tried, and upon which he may be convicted—that has to be given on oath, in public, in court—but what may have been said, or may not have been said on the information which has nothing to do with the evidence upon which an accused person is tried and eventually convicted. It seems to us in those circumstances that it is not right that the information upon which the prosecution has sought to initiate proceedings, but on which it can no further and no longer rely, should be disclosed to the defence.
After all, there is no obligation on the defence to disclose their information, although it might be very useful in cross-examination of witnesses called by the defence to see the stories they gave to their solicitors, and to compare them with the evidence they actually give in court. No doubt that would be of advantage, but there seems no good reason when dealing with cases which have to be tried on the evidence given in court on oath, and in public—which is what matters to disclose what witnesses may, or may not, have said on some previous and private occasion. The defendant is not concerned with the grounds which may have led the prosecution to initiate proceedings, or even with the grounds which may have led a particular magistrate—who is not usually the magistrate who tries the case, although I agree sometimes he may be—to agree to the issue of a summons, or the issue of a warrant. What the defence are concerned with is the evidence given on oath, in court. It is only on that that the accused can be committed for trial, or, in the end, convicted. It does not seem to us to be in the interests of justice that there should be any compulsory disclosure, any general disclosure, in all cases of the information which may have led up to the initiation of the prosecution, of the granting of the summons, or warrant. In those circumstances, we are not in a position to accept the new Clause.

Mr. Solley: I have listened, as always, with great interest to what has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend, but I venture to submit that there has been an ambiguity of thought in his argument. As I understood that argument he said that if the accused was given a sight of the written information he might, were he of an unscrupulous frame of mind, upset the due administration of justice, possibly by getting into touch with the proposed witnesses for the prosecution, thereby preventing the fair and due course of the trial. In practice, in indictable cases the accused is given not merely the names and addresses of the witnesses for the prosecution, but the contents of their evidence. Those who practise in criminal courts know full well that it is not frequently, in indictable cases, that the accused puts the defence before the stipendiary or the bench; the defence is reserved. In practice, what obtains is that the defendant is made aware of all


the names and addresses of each and every one of the prosecution's witnesses and the actual evidence already given.

The Attorney-General: Is my hon. Friend saying that it is the practice anywhere to give the defence copies of the names and addresses of the prosecution's witnesses and of the evidence which they may be going to give before they have actually given it? They are, of course, entitled to the evidence when it has been given on oath; those are the depositions upon which the committal is based. I do not know of any practice in any court with which I am familiar of giving copies of the evidence in advance.

Mr. Solley: I am sorry if there should have been any misunderstanding. If it is due to the inadequacy of my explanation, I apologise. The point I was making was that, in so far as the defendant might be tempted to interfere with the administration of justice because he knows of the identity of the witnesses for the prosecution, he can do it as easily under the present system, whereby the prosecution's witnesses actually go into the witness box in the court of summary jurisdiction, as he could do if the Clause which we are now discussing were adopted.
I understood the Attorney-General's argument to be that if this Clause becomes law an unscrupulous defendant will be able to tamper with the prosecution's witnesses. It is true that under the proposed new Clause such tampering could take place before the evidence is given by those witnesses, but under the present system the defendant can still tamper with those witnesses, because he knows who they are, it is true after evidence has been given openly in a court of first instance, but before the case goes before the jury, which is really the substantive trial in a case which goes to assize or quarter sessions.
Another point to be borne in mind is that it is on the basis of the written information that the prosecution normally presents its case. It is by no means unusual for maliciously minded individuals, for their own purposes, to swear to facts or give as evidence statements which ultimately form the basis of this information, which are totally inaccurate and false—probably false to the knowledge of the deponent, the person who lays the

information. Why should not the defendant, in such a case, have the opportunity, at some stage or other, of seeing what was said originally by the prosecutor, of seeing to what extent in a particular case such a statement was maliciously and falsely made, and to what extent, if any, the defendant could have his remedy in a civil court as a result of any such false or malicious statement?
5.45 p.m.
I put it before the House as a matter of principle that not only should a defendant have the opportunity of knowing with complete particularity the case which is to be made against him; he should also be in a position to check the information which was given to the prosecution, and which initiated the prosecution, with the actual evidence which was subsequently adduced by the prosecution, in order to test, if necessary by cross-examination in court, the bona fides of the prosecution. For these and certain other reasons which have already been referred to, I ask the Government whether they can reconsider their attitude, and if they cannot accept this Clause, whether they can accept the principle and embody it in a clause of their own drafting, at some stage in the proceedings on this Bill.

Mr. Janner: I wish to add a few words on the point which has been made. It may be that the difficulty which the Attorney-General has seen in this matter lies in the fact, as he himself said, that at the commencement of the proceedings he does not desire that the name of witnesses, or somebody who may be called, should be disclosed. That may be very well at the commencement of the proceedings, but surely there is some stage of the proceedings at which this information should be available to the accused person. If my right hon. and learned Friend could devise some method by which the defendant would be entitled to have placed before him the statement on which he had been brought before the court, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) would probably be satisfied.
As I understand it, the proposal is not intended to give an opportunity to a defendant to utilise information for the purpose of evading the consequences of any acts that have been committed by him. What is really intended is that an


accused person shall know the exact details of the accusation which has been made against him when the proceedings were begun, and so not be placed in a position whereby someone who is prosecuted has not had the information which the court has had. It is reasonable to ask the Government that at some stage before the preliminary proceedings are finished the defendant should have an opportunity of cross-examining on those points or of having a witness recalled if necessary, and of taking such other steps as may be necessary when a malicious prosecution has been instituted against him without there being any real foundation for the information which has been laid. I hope the Attorney-General will reconsider the matter from that point of view.

Mr. Weitzman: May I have the leave of the House to deal with one or two of the points that have been raised by the Attorney-General? The apparent difficulty put forward about this Clause is simply that if the information is supplied the names and addresses of witnesses may be disclosed, and an accused person or someone connected with him may, in some unscrupulous fashion, approach witnesses or do something wrongly in regard to the case. In that matter there may be a difficulty to be dealt with. On the other hand, we have to face the fact that we desire to see that an accused person has every opportunity of knowing what case is made against him, and of dealing with it in the greatest possible detail.
It is wrong that a magistrate who tries the case should have in his mind information which is not disclosed to the accused person. It is wrong that the accused person should not have the opportunity of being given that information. I think the suggestion made by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) is a good one. If it is thought that disclosing the information at a very early period would bring about the danger of witnesses being tampered with, I suggest that the difficulty would easily be overcome by making the information available to the defence if necessary at some period after the person is committed for trial, but at any rate in such a manner that the accused person would have the opportunity of having that matter before him.
I am sure that there must be many hon. Members who know of actual

instances of persons going into the witness box and telling stories quite different from the stories set out in the information. Many magistrates allow the information to be disclosed, and them the defence is in the happy position of being able to compare the information and the statements made in the information with the actual evidence given on oath. It can then be demonstrated immediately when a false charge is being made. No accused person should be put in peril in a matter of this kind, and I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to say that consideration will be given to this matter to remedy what I suggest is a very real grievance.

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend has now made a rather different suggestion from that contained in the proposed new Clause. He has suggested that copies of the information ought to be made available in those cases where there is a committal for trial, and after the committal. That is a substantially different proposition from the one he originally advanced. I obviously cannot give any undertaking in the matter, but I will give consideration to it and see whether it may be possible to make some such provision in another place.
I do not think the practice is that the trial court, certainly in indictable cases, has the information before it. It may happen, it may be so in summary cases, that the magistrate who issued the summons, or authorised the warrant is the magistrate who actually tries the case. That is fortuitous. It is no part of the ordinary system of administration of justice that the information should be considered by or be before the judge or justice who tries the case. So far as the defendant is concerned, he knows what the charge is when he gets the summons, or is charged. He knows what the evidence is when it comes to be given. If it takes him by surprise, he is entitled to some adjournment in order to consider it. But he cannot be convicted on anything except the evidence given in the court, and the vital thing for the defendant is not what may or may not have been said on the application for the original warrant or summons, but the evidence against him in the court. I will consider the modified proposal of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Weitzman: Having heard what has been said by my right hon. and learned


Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Appeals.)

The Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, shall be amended by the deletion of paragraph (a) of Subsection (1) of Section thirty-one and by the insertion in its place of the following words:
(a) in any criminal case or matter except as provided by the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, or this Act or except with the leave of the High Court or Court of Appeal or the House of Lords from any judgment of the High Court."—[Mr. Manningham-Buller.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause raises the question which which I regard as of some importance. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will also agree that it is one of considerable importance in the practice of our courts, particularly after the discussion which we had last Friday. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is able to be here this afternoon to give us the assistance of his views upon this matter. Under this new Clause, provision is made for an appeal from the Divisional Court of the High Court in any criminal case or matter. That right of appeal does not exist at the present time.
I think it is true to say that that court not only recently, but in the years gone by, has had to decide questions of the highest constitutional importance, and will have to do so in the years to come. During the war there was the question of whether those who live in Eire were liable to conscription. There was certainly the case of whether a Dutchman, resident in this country could, during war, be arrested and taken away and dealt with as a deserter from the Netherlands Forces. There was a recent case when the Divisional Court determined that a man who had been an officer was not subject to military law at the time of his conviction by a court martial—a case which the Lord Chief Justice of England said was of the highest constitutional importance.
In connection with those cases, no matter how important be the question,

there is no right of appeal at the present time. From the Court of Criminal Appeal on a matter of important principle there is an appeal to the House of Lords with the consent of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or the Solicitor-General. The result is that, in practice, we may have a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal on a criminal matter, and a decision of the Divisional Court in a criminal case or matter, which disagree. If the decision of the Divisional Court comes after the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal there is at the moment no machinery whereby the decision of the Divisional Court can be taken to a higher tribunal.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now agree that there is a great deal of force in the argument that there should be some right of appeal from the Divisional Court. If I have been able to carry him with me, with the pressure of events which have taken place, to that extent, the next question is, what right of appeal should be given? Before I deal with that question I think he will agree that the only way in which we have been able to challenge the decision of the Divisional Court in the past and the only way to do it under the law as it now stands, is by starting what may be a friendly civil action, or resisting a claim for damges for wrongful imprisonment or something of that sort, and taking that case right up to a superior court. It is a cumbrous, awkward piece of machinery to attempt to achieve a simple matter, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that there is a case for a right of appeal to a higher court—limited to cases of grave principle and high constitutional importance. I was wrong to use the word "right "—I should say in regard to cases where an appeal should be brought.
If provision is made for an appeal from the Divisional Court what conditions should be satisfied before that appeal can be brought? In this new Clause I have said that no appeal shall be brought without leave of the High Court or the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords. The Parliamentary Secretary, when we debated this in Committee, made some comments on the possible multiplicity of applications for leave to appeal. There is some force in his observations but I am not wedded to that part of this new Clause. It may be that the most satis-


factory manner would be to provide machinery similar to that of appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeal, and then the Divisional Court and Court of Criminal Appeal would be in line, with an appeal to the House of Lords with the consent of the Law Officers. Whichever method is adopted, and whether or not the right hon. and learned Gentleman can accept this new Clause as it now stands, I hope that the discussion will, at least, elicit from him the admission that he now recognises the desirability of providing some machinery for appeal and the statement that he will make provision for that machinery, even if he cannot accept this new Clause, when the Bill is discussed in another place.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I beg to second the Motion.

6.0 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I must say at the outset, and emphasise my view, that the mere multiplication of appeals is not in the interests of justice. Finality and certainty are very important elements in the law. I have said before and say again that it is a very grave criticism of parts of our judicial machinery that finality is reached in some cases only after they have been taken through as many as four different stages or levels in the judicial hierarchy.
On the other hand, perhaps it is not generally a good thing that there should be no right of appeal at all. That is certainly the position in regard to some of the cases which come before the Divisional Court. The House will remember, in considering this matter, that in some cases the Divisional Court is itself an appellant court and in some cases it is a court of first instance. By far the greatest part of its work is concerned, I think, with appeals by way of cases stated by courts of summary jurisdiction; part of it is concerned with cases stated from courts of quarter sessions and these cases may themselves be appeals from courts of summary jurisdiction. And part, but quite a small proportion, of the court's work is concerned with cases in which the court is acting as a court of first instance, dealing with what are called the Crown paper cases, under prerogative writs.
Possibly under both of those different forms of jurisdiction, and certainly under the latter, cases sometimes come before

the Divisional Court which are of great legal difficulty and of considerable public importance. I say at once that I have a great deal of sympathy with the view which was expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that in those cases the possibility of appeal to some higher tribunal ought not entirely to be excluded. I do not say that because any of us have the slightest lack of confidence in the Divisional Court, which is very often, and indeed is usually, presided over by the Lord Chief Justice and commands universal respect. But the court sometimes deals with cases which are so important and so wide in their constitutional and public implications that it may seem desirable that the highest tribunal in the land should be able to deal with them, and—this I think is an important point—to do so in a way quite unfettered by the previous decisions of courts of subordinate jurisdiction. Only the highest tribunal in the land can deal with cases in that way.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out that the Divisional Court occupies a position which corresponds to and is of the same status as the Court of Criminal Appeal. The same reasons may exist as in the case of the Court of Criminal Appeal for providing for the possibility of appeals in exceptional cases. On the other hand, of course, the same reasons, and they are strong and indeed compelling reasons, exist for ensuring that, in the great majority of cases, the decisions of the Divisional Court should be final.
All that I think I can say on the matter now is that if the hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to withdraw the proposed new Clause we will give the matter the fullest, and by no means an unsympathetic, consideration. I have not had an opportunity of consulting with my noble Friend, or with the other persons whom it would be proper to consult in a matter of this kind. I cannot therefore commit the Government finally to introducing a Clause on these lines in another place; but we will give most careful thought to it. The hon. and learned Gentleman will judge from what I have said that it will certainly not be unsympathetic consideration.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Once again, and it is unusual for me to do so, I have to thank the Government for the way in which they have approached the problem


with which the new Clause is intended to deal. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will succeed in his efforts to overcome the difficulties which he has indicated. I did not disagree with anything he said in regard to the limitations which it is right to place upon appeals from the Divisional Court or as to the position which the Divisional Court now occupies and should continue to occupy in our eyes and in the eyes of the public. I shall watch with interest to see what takes place on this point in another place and I hope that my observation of the report will lead to my learning that a provision of this kind is made in another place to deal with this point.

The Attorney-General: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down I would like to say that I am not sure that I made quite clear what I had in mind. It was that I would consider with sympathy a provision for appeal in exactly the same circumstances as those which now exist in the Court of Criminal Appeal, that is to say, on the fiat of the Attorney-General, where an important point of law is raised and the matter is of public interest.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Speaking for myself, I should be absolutely satisfied. As I rather indicated in moving the Clause, I thought there was something to be said for a right of appeal, subject to precisely the same conditions. I think the Attorney-General would agree that that form of limitation might be better than the one contained in the proposed new Clause. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 3.—(Probation.)

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Mr. Ede.

Sir T. Moore: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Do I gather that you are not calling the Amendment in my name, in Clause 2, page 2, to leave out lines 16 to 18?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That Amendment has not been selected by Mr. Speaker.

Sir T. Moore: May I submit that the recent decision to abolish corporal punishment makes a very important change in

our social and judicial conditions? May I also ask if your reason is that the matter—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, but the hon. and gallant Member knows that it is not customary for the occupant of the Chair to give any reason. I can only say that Mr. Speaker has not selected the Amendment. I am afraid that we cannot have any argument upon its merits.

Sir T. Moore: I am not asking for reasons but merely submitting a reason why you might possibly change your mind, if you were to listen just for one more minute—for one more second.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Speaker has made the decision and not Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I must clearly abide by Mr. Speaker's decision.

Sir T. Moore: Would it not be possible for you to submit to Mr. Speaker the excellent arguments I might raise, in sufficient time for a change to be made?

Captain Marsden: On that point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Surely, you represent Mr. Speaker on this occasion? I most respectfully urge that the situation has very materially altered since this point was discussed in Committee, by reason of the decision to abolish the death penalty. That means a revolution in all forms of punishment. We decided this matter in Committee, but surely in the changed conditions we ought to allow the whole House to decide whether whipping should be another possible form of punishment under the new conditions?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No doubt all these matters have been considered by Mr. Speaker, and he has taken his decision.

Sir T. Moore: I think there is one argument of which Mr. Speaker was unaware at the time, and that is that, when the 1938 Bill, which was the predecessor of this Bill, was being discussed in this House, the then Home Secretary gave an undertaking that there would be a free vote of the House on this very subject.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That may be. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made his representations to Mr. Speaker, and I am afraid that I cannot on those grounds stray from the decision not to select his Amendment.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Do the same arguments apply to the Amendment to line 16—after "court," to insert "or by any other authority"—standing in my name? I certainly have not discussed this at all with Mr. Speaker, and, with due respect to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I suggest that this discussion has followed the points raised by the lawyers in the Committee, and that the legal points have been discussed and the human ones lost entirely.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Ede.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move in page 2, line 26, to leave out "and home surroundings."
This is a drafting Amendment which arose on the discussion initiated by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) who suggested that the words "and home surroundings" in this context did not fulfil the objects we have in view. During the Committee stage, we inserted them in another place in the Bill, but, at that time, we had passed this point, and, therefore, in order to prevent repetition in the Bill and to give this Subsection the meaning which we intended, I beg to submit the present Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think I should express my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Probation orders requiring treatment for mental condition.)

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Ede.

Mr. James Hudson: On a point of Order. Is it intended to call the Amendment in the names of my hon. Friends and myself dealing with the question of intoxication, in Clause 3? In page 3, line 17, at end, insert:
(5) In any case where it appears that an offence has been caused or partly caused by the offender's addiction to drugs or intoxicating liquor, the court shall consider whether, if the offender is to be placed on probation, a condition of abstinence from drugs or intoxicating liquor shall or shall not be attached to the probation order

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid not. Mr. Speaker has not selected that Amendment.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Further to that point of Order. Can you give us any guidance on this matter, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Some of us are not old Members of the House, but we put down these Amendments and have waited very patiently for them to be taken. I have got the impression that all the lawyers have got going with their abstruse, academic points and their Amendments have been taken without any consideration for those put forward by laymen. I protest most emphatically.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must protest to Mr. Speaker. If he wants to know whether Amendments, have been selected or to make representations, he should see his Whips or Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means in Committee.

Mr. Hudson: Did Mr. Speaker take into account that there were 50 hon. Members who were so anxious about this matter that they put their names to this Amendment which, in actual terms, is a different Amendment from the one submitted in the Committee?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That may be but the Standing Orders provide that Mr. Speaker shall have an absolute discretion. He has exercised that discretion, and has not selected the hon. Member's Amendment.

Mr. Hudson: May I ask if this would be a reasonable case for you to consider and submit in some way to Mr. Speaker? The position is that there is a tremendous interest in the matter covered by the Amendment which we wish to move, and we feel that we are under a very great disability. I would add to the complaint which my hon. Friend has made that the lawyers have had a great run, but that the laymen have had no opportunity of discussing matters very dear to the hearts of many of them. These are matters which have been within the legislation of the last 20 or 30 years and been accepted in the courts.

Sir T. Moore: Was Mr. Speaker aware—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I cannot allow hon. Members to discuss the way in which Mr. Speaker exercises his discretion. He has exercised that discretion, and I must ask hon. Members to abide by it.

Sir T. Moore: I fully accept the position of Mr. Speaker, and I am not appealing against it in any way. I was merely wanting to ask if he was aware that there was a very limited attendance at the Standing Committee and that this point was not fully discussed, because the Committee was totally unrepresentative of this House on that occasion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am calling the next Amendment. Mr. Ede.

Mr. Ede: Mr. Ede rose—

Mr. Hudson: May I ask a question? Is there any opportunity, either now or at the end of the discussion on the Report stage, when any expression of opinion can be made on this or other points? Is any possibility of raising this matter finally ruled out?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I gather that the matter is covered, to some extent, by Subsection (3), but I could not offer any further advice, except that there will be an opportunity on Third Reading to discuss what is in the Bill. That is all I can offer the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hudson: But this is not in the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Ede.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 4, line 1, to leave out from "court," to "is," in line 2.
There are, on the Paper, three further Amendments also dealing with Clause 4, which, with the consent of the House and yourself, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it would be desirable that I should deal with at the same time:
In page 4, line 3 after "practitioner," to insert appearing to the court to be experienced in the diagnosis of mental disorders.
In line 3 to leave out second "the" and insert "an.
In line 7, to leave out from "court," to "a," in line 8, and insert "may, if it makes a probation order, include therein.
The first and fourth of these Amendments make it clear that the inclusion in a probation order of a requirement relating to the treatment of a mental condition is governed by the general provisions of Clause 3, which require the consent of an offender over the age of 14 before the order is made. When we were in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) expressed doubt whether this was the effect

of the Subsection as drafted, and I undertook to consider whether the Clause should be amended so as to make this clear. The effect of the first and fourth Amendments will be to make the Subsection read, reciting only the operative words:
(1) Where the court is satisfied … may, if it makes a probation order, include therein a requirement …
and so on.
The second and third of these Amendments deal with an undertaking which I gave to make it quite certain that the medical practitioner who was consulted about the mental state of an offender should be one who was really competent to give to the court guidance on the matters in question. It will be seen that I am moving the words:
appearing to the court to be experienced in the diagnosis of mental disorders.
That is as near as I can get. During the Committee stage, I said that I was not going to confer a statutory distinction upon any particular diploma or society that might be formed of medical men who would claim to possess this particular knowledge. It will be the duty of the courts to make themselves reasonably acquainted with the qualifications of the medical practitioners concerned who give an opinion on the matters on which they are consulted. I think this removes the misgivings that were felt by some hon. Members that an ordinary general practitioner with no great knowledge in this matter could be called before the court and express an opinion and an offender might be dealt with on what was really not very skilled advice. I think that these Amendments meet the pledges that I gave during the Committee stage.

Mr. Janner: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is proposed to call the Amendments relating to a similar matter regarding this Clause, which stand in the names of the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) and myself, amongst others, suggesting two practitioners instead of one.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Those two Amendments are not being called.

Mr. Janner: Those of us who have fears about the type of medical men who will be consulted are bound to say that my right hon. Friend has gone per-


haps as far as he can go to satisfy those fears. There is not the slightest doubt at all that it is highly essential, in cases where a question of the mental state of the individual concerned is at issue, that the medical man who has to give evidence, or has to give his opinion, should be a person who really understands that particular kind of complaint, and not be one whose practice has not been concerned with that type of complaint.
We were discussing yesterday a very important matter in the question of capital punishment. In my view these matters relating to the mental state of an accused person are of equal importance to those matters which were then being discussed, because, in the very large number of cases that come before the courts, that particular condition is of material importance and is very often overlooked. We ought to express our thanks to the Home Secretary for having considered that point. I would have preferred, as I think many other hon. Members would, that he went a little further and said that he would not leave it entirely to the opinion of one practitioner. As my Amendment is not being called, I assume I would be out of Order in arguing that; nevertheless, I still hope that, before the final stages of the Bill my right hon. Friend may realise that the matter is a grave one where the question of the mental condition of an individual is concerned, and may, perhaps, extend his generosity towards allowing another practitioner to be consulted as well.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 4, line 3, after "practitioner," to insert:
appearing to the court to be experienced in the diagnosis of mental disorders.
This Amendment is one of those which I included at the time of the original discussion. In answer to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) may I say that, if the defence wish to bring a second doctor in front of the court, it is always open, to them to do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 3, to leave out second "the," and insert "an."

In line 7, leave out from "court," to "a," in line 8, and insert "may if it makes a probation order, include therein."—[Mr. Ede.]

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): I beg to move, in page 5, line 14, to leave out from "order," to "are," in line 15, and to insert:
(6) Where any such arrangements as are mentioned in the last foregoing Subsection.
Perhaps at the same time I might refer to the next Amendment in line 24, because this first one is purely a drafting Amendment which creates in form a new Subsection in order to make it follow on to the rather more lengthy form of words now proposed to be inserted by means of the next Amendment at line 24. The more substantial Amendment at line 24 substitutes for the first four lines of Subsection (6), as it is now drafted, a provision in similar terms, subject to the modifications which have become necessary in consequence of the Amendment which we have just accepted to Clause 4 (1), which requires the evidence to be that of:
a duly qualified medical practitioner appearing to the court to be experienced in the diagnosis of mental disorders.
There is another new addition in the last two lines of the Amendment at line 24, but this is only formal and is included for clarification.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 24, leave out from beginning, to end of line 27, and insert:
Subject as hereinafter provided, a report in writing as to the mental condition of any person purporting to be signed by a duly qualified medical practitioner experienced in the diagnosis of mental disorders may be received in evidence for the purposes of Subsection (1) of this Section without proof of the signature, qualifications or experience of the practitioner."—[Mr. Younger.]

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 5, line 30, to leave out "appears to the court to be," and insert "is."
This Amendment appears, as hon. Members may have noticed, in the same form in many places in the Order Paper. There are many different Clauses in this Bill where it is necessary to consider the age of a person coming before the court, whether for purposes of probation or for going to prison or to Borstal detention, as well as for many other purposes. As the Bill is drafted, in each case the phrase is used: "where this person appears to the court to be of a certain age." That


is a reasonable provision, designed to prevent the necessity for strict proof of age if there is no dispute about it. This is really only a drafting Amendment, because what is now proposed is that the phrase:
appears to the court to be
should be omitted in every case throughout the Bill and that, instead of it an Amendment covering all cases where this question of age arises should be inserted in the interpretation Clause towards the end of the Bill. For the convenience of hon. Members I should say that the Amendment referred to is that appearing on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend—in page 58, line 42, at end, insert:
(3) Where the age of any person at any time is material for the purposes of any provision of this Act, or of any Order in Council made thereunder, regulating the powers of a court, his age at the material time shall be deemed to be or to have been that which appears to the court to be or to have been his age at that time.
There are Government Amendments down in the name of my right hon. Friend which cover all the occasions when this phrase occurs in the Bill, a point which, under the present draft, is dealt with separately in each instance. I am explaining this at length because it is a form of Amendment which will occur many times, and I hope that the House will be prepared to accept it as a convenient form of redrafting.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: One fully appreciates the advantage of not having to require direct proof in many cases, but there are some cases where direct proof will obviously be necessary. Would the hon. Gentleman tell us to what extent the door has been opened, so to speak, in such cases?

Mr. Younger: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, I do not think there can be any question of there being a lack of direct proof where there is any dispute about it, but if the hon. Gentleman will look at the various Amendments as we come to them I do not think he will find any instance where one can say that there ought normally to be direct proof. Of course, it is clear that if there is a dispute the court will

have to be satisfied on evidence produced by one side or the other.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 35, leave out "appears to the court to be," and insert "is."—[Mr. Younger.]

CLAUSE 6.—(Breach of requirement of probation order.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 7. line 41, at the end, to insert:
and a probationer who is required by the probation order to submit to treatment for his mental condition shall not be treated for the purpose of this Act as having failed to comply with that requirement on the ground only that he has refused to undergo any surgical, electrical or other treatment if, in the opinion of the court, his refusal was reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.
This Amendment is moved in accordance with an undertaking given by the Under-Secretary in Committee to consider the inclusion of a provision to the effect that refusal to undergo a surgical operation should not be regarded as a breach of the requirement of a probation order relating to mental treatment. When we were in Committee my hon. Friend drew attention to the difficulty of defining the term "surgical operation" which would apparently include an injection or electrical treatment. In view of this difficulty, it has not been found possible to draft the Amendment so as to provide in terms that refusal to undergo a surgical operation should not be regarded as a breach of the requirement of a probation order relating to mental treatment.
The provision made by the Amendment is that refusal to undergo surgical, electrical or other treatment should not be regarded as such a breach if, in the opinion of the court, the probationer's refusal was reasonable having regard to all the circumstances. It will thus be for the court to decide whether the refusal in any particular case is reasonable or not. After very careful consideration we have come to the conclusion that this is the only way in which we can satisfactorily meet the very strong views that were expressed in the Committee, and I hope that the House, and in particular those hon. Members who served on the Committee, will feel that we have met the points which were raised.

Mr. Benson: I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for


meeting the point that was raised in Committee. I realise that there are difficulties, and I think that the Clause, as amended, will meet the major point.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Supplementary provisions as to probation and discharge.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 15, line 12, at the end, to insert:
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of Subsection (2) of Section fifty-five of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933 (which enables a court to order the parent or guardian of a child or young person charged with an offence to give security for his good behaviour), any court may, on making a probation order or an order for conditional discharge under this Part of this Act, if it thinks it expedient for the purpose of the reformation of the offender, allow any person who consents to do so to give security for the good behaviour of the offender; and Section twenty-three of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, shall apply to any security so given before a court of summary jurisdiction as if it were given under That Act by a surety.
Under the existing law a probation order is made upon the probationer's entering into a recognizance, and the recognizance may be with or without sureties. The Bill abolishes recognizances on probation, and the general powers of a court to take recognizances do not extend to taking them from a surety where the principal is not himself bound over. There is power under Section 55 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, to order the parents or guardian of a child or young person charged with an offence to give security for his good behaviour, but there are cases where someone other than a parent or guardian may be a suitable person.
I can recall a case at quarter sessions where a number of lads were brought in front of the court, and the local schoolmaster, who was a personal friend of mine, went into the witness box to give evidence about his knowledge of these youths' characters, and expressed his confidence in their reformation if a certain course was adopted by the court. The chairman of quarter sessions said, "That is very interesting testimony. You know these lads very well. Would you be content to be one of the sureties for their good behaviour and to take an interest in them in the future?" My friend agreed on the spot, and, as far as I know, the result was satisfactory in every way.
There are on occasion citizens of that type, who might be willing to take an interest in a lad or a girl or a group of young people, and undertake to be responsible for their oversight during the period of probation. It is very desirable that these non-professional probation officers should be encouraged wherever they are willing to act. I hope the House will agree that this is a very desirable Amendment to make to the Bill, so that such persons can, through the act of good citizenship, be available for this purpose.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: I should like to add my word to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said—

Mr. Ede: I am not learned.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry. Anyway, the right hon. Gentleman need not be so haughty over what from us on this side of the House is a term of the highest approbation. I should like to join the right hon. Gentleman in acclaiming the proposal which is put forward here. I was often in a position, sitting as recorder, when some such proposal as this would have been very useful. I have never found that in reality, fortunately, we are short of these public-spirited people, and I can only join with the right hon. Gentleman in hoping that these excellent results will occur.

Mr. Austin: The Government have every good intention in this proposed Subsection, but there is a weakness on which I would like clarification. It is intended, of course, that
any person who consents to do so
will apply to a person of probity and integrity such as a schoolmaster, as has been mentioned by my right hon. Friend. But I can conceive of a case where a young offender has been brought into crime or wrongdoing through the influence of someone who is not a person of probity and integrity—a wrongdoer himself who may have some bad influence on the young offender and who, because of his attachment to that person, would be prepared to stand surety. That situation would be possible under these words,
allow any person who consents to do so".
I was wondering whether the Home Secretary would look into this matter with a


view to inserting qualifying words such as:
allow any person of good character to do so.
This may be a minor point, but the words "of good character" would ensure that the offender would be rescued by the help of somebody of good character.

Mr. H. Hynd: I wish to make a somewhat similar point to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin). Unlike him, I have no fears that the court will give its consent lightly. There is the operative word "may" in the Amendment, and I take it that the court would exercise very careful discretion before they allowed someone in effect to take the place of the probation officer. I would like to emphasise that nothing should be done that would automatically substitute other people for the probation officer, and that only someone who was acceptable as a suitable alternative to the probation officer should be the person visualised in this proposal. On that understanding, I would like to express my full support of this Amendment.

Mr. Ede: By leave of the House, I will draw the attention of my two hon. Friends to the words which are immediately before those quoted by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin):
If it thinks it expedient for the purpose of the reformation of the offender.
It is clear the court would not put Mr. Fagin over the Artful Dodger. I think it is clear that we have taken steps in the Clause to ensure that the person chosen shall be a suitable person. I want to say nothing which decries the professional probation officer, but there are some cases —on occasion a member of a Rotary club —where someone is willing to undertake the supervision of youths. There are people of that description—sometimes the employer may be a very suitable person to use. I hope that the work of supervising the probationer will not become an entirely professional matter.

Amendment agreed to.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in line 31, at the end, to insert:
(4) In proceedings before a court of assize or quarter sessions under the foregoing provisions of this Act, any question whether a probationer has failed to comply with the requirements of the probation order or has been convicted of an offence committed during

the probation period, and any question whether any person in whose case an order for conditional discharge has been made has been convicted of an offence committed during the period of conditional discharge, shall be determined by the court and not by the verdict of a jury.
There was some doubt on the Clause as it was originally drafted—I think it was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller)—how it was to be proved to the satisfaction of a court of quarter sessions or assize that a probationer had failed to comply with the conditions of a probation order. Was the matter one to be tried by a jury? In what other way would it be dealt with? This Clause provides that that question, and also the question whether a probationer has been convicted during the course of the probation period, should be determined by the court and not by the jury—by the judge and by justices and not by the jury.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 13.—(Powers of courts of assize and quarter sessions in relation to fines and forfeited recognizances.)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 16, line 3, to leave out "the court may by order," and to insert:
an order may be made in accordance with the provisions of this Section.
With permission, I should like to explain this Amendment and the following group of Amendments on the Order Paper. In point of fact, all the first six of these Amendments are drafting Amendments and the substantial part of this proposal lies in the new Subsection (2). In Committee, the hon. Member for Hanley (Dr. Barnett Stross) moved an Amendment with a view to ensuring that there should always be an inquiry as to means before a person was sent to prison in default of payment of a fine. That Amendment was resisted, and it was explained that it would be very difficult to have an inquiry of that sort, but it was suggested that there might be an alternative way out of the difficulty by giving power to certain persons to allow time to pay, or payment by instalments, after the fine had actually been imposed. In fact, that suggestion was welcomed by the Committee.
The new Subsection which it is proposed to add makes provision whereby a person who has been fined, or whose


recognisance has been forfeited at assizes, can apply in writing to a clerk of assize, or a clerk of the peace, to be allowed time to pay, if no order prescribing time for payment was made, or to be granted an extension of time if such order was made, or to be allowed to pay by instalments or have the period of instalments extended. Power is given by the proposed Subsection to the chairman or deputy chairman, or recorder or deputy recorder, or the judge of the high court in the case of assizes, to make an order on such an application. I hope the House will feel that this provides the sort of safeguard which was asked for in Committee and, in effect, does much the same as though we had not been unable, on practical grounds, to provide for an inquiry as to ability to pay.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 16, line 4, leave out "allow," and insert "allowing."

In line 6, leave out "direct," and insert "directing."

In line 9, leave out "fix," and insert "fixing."

In line 12, leave out "discharge," and insert "discharging."

In line 13, leave out "reduce," and insert "reducing."

In line 16, at end, insert:
(2) Any order under this section may be made by the court by which the fine is imposed or before which the recognisance is forfeited; and (subject as hereinafter provided) an order under this section providing for any such matters as are mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection. may be made—

(a) where the fine was imposed or the recognisance forfeited by or before the Central Criminal Court, by a judge of that court upon application made in writing to the clerk of the court;
(b) where the fine was imposed or the recognisance forfeited by or before any other court of assize, by a judge of the High Court upon application made in writing to the clerk of assize;
(c) where the fine was imposed or the recognisance forfeited by or before a court of quarter sessions, by the chairman or any deputy chairman of that court, or by the recorder or any deputy recorder, as the case may be, upon application made in writing to the clerk of the peace;
and may amend any previous order made under this section so far as it provides for those matters.

Provided that no application shall be made under paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection after the refusal of a previous application made thereunder."—[Mr. Younger.]

6.45 p.m.

CLAUSE 14.—(Incidental provisions as to fines and forfeited recognizances.)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 16, line 32 after "order," to insert "made."
There are here two groups of Amendments, starting with this one and including the next six. They are all consequential upon the Amendments which the House has just approved. They are all of a rather technical character and are necessitated because it is essential to bring the procedure of the Amendments which we have just made into line with the procedure laid down in the Acts mentioned in Clause 14 (1)—the Queen's Remembrancer Act, 1859. The law Terms Act, 1830, and the Levy of Fines Act, 1822. These are very technical matters and unless any hon. Member wishes to raise anything further, perhaps that will be sufficient explanation.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 16, line 32, leave out from "section," to "before," in line 33.

In line 37, leave out "and."

In line 47, at end, insert:
(2) Where application is duly made for an order under the last foregoing section after the enrolment of the fine or recognizance as aforesaid, the clerk to whom the application is made shall give notice thereof to the officer responsible for the recovery of the fine or the amount due under the recognizance, and shall give the like notice of any decision thereon.

In page 17, line 1, leave out from "Where," to "allowing," and insert:
an order under the last foregoing section.

In line 4, after "instalments," insert:
is enrolled under Subsection (t) of this Section, or notice of the making of any such order is given to.

In line 5, after "recognizance," insert:
in accordance with the provisions of the last foregoing Subsection, that officer."—[Mr. Younger.]

CLAUSE 15.—(Restriction on sentence of death.)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 18, line 1, to leave out from "shall," to "be," in line 2.
This is simply a drafting Amendment to remove certain words from the Bill which are no longer considered necessary in view of the other Amendments to the Children's and Young Persons Act which appear in other parts of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 16.—(Restriction on imprisonment.)

Mr. Royle: I beg to move, in page 18, line 5, to leave out "of summary jurisdiction."
I am very grateful that I have the opportunity of raising a matter which has had some discussion in the Standing Committee but which I raise again at this stage of the Bill because I feel it has a tremendous importance for the future, particularly in regard to young offenders. May I read the Subsection with which we are concerned:
A court of summary jurisdiction shall not impose imprisonment on a person appearing to the court to be under 17 years of age; and a court of assize or quarter sessions shall not impose imprisonment on a person appearing to the court to be under 15 years of age.
I felt, and expressed the view in Standing Committee—a,nd I had a lot of support in this connection—that it was not right in these enlightened days that any young person under the age of 17 should be sentenced to terms of imprisonment by any court in the land. The Subsection lays down that such a position shall apply in the case of a court of summary jurisdiction, but the power is enlarged and widened in the case of quarter sessions or court of assize. I am pressing that what applies to a court of summary jurisdiction in this connection shall also apply to the two higher courts mentioned.
During the discussion in Standing Committee my right hon. Friend and the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Maude) adduced their arguments very largely on the illustration of the Standon Farm case; where young boys actually killed one of their masters. It was suggested that this outstanding case was an illustration of how what we want done would operate. We are now laying down conditions for very many years to come, and we cannot base them upon an individual, isolated case of that kind. We must look ahead, realising that we shall not have opportunities for many years,

probably, of putting this question right, if we do not put it right now. By then, anyway, many of the other provisions of the Bill will have been implemented. There will be places where young persons of that type may receive the right treatment. So I oppose—and I am confident that I have much support on all sides of the House—the principle that any court should have the power to sentence any person under 17 years of age to imprisonment as we know it now.
This Clause agrees in principle with what I am saying—that no law court shall have that power. Therefore, my right hon. Friend must feel that, in itself, this is a desirable thing. I ask, therefore, Why give that power to the higher courts? Steadily through the years this country has lifted the age at which young people can be sent to prison, and that reform has been approved by the overwhelming mass of our people. It may be many years before an opportunity once more presents itself for further reforms. With the school-leaving age now established at 15 we regard boys and girls as children up to the age of 16 and until they reach their seventeenth birthdays. It is to me a very deplorable thing that such children may be sent to prison with all the stigma that such imprisonment carries with it. We have means at our disposal to avoid that, and we shall have greater means at our disposal as soon as this Bill is implemented. I want to be brief because I share the general desire to get this Bill through, but I feel impelled to make another appeal to my right hon. Friend to have another look at this matter, so that we shall save ourselves for many years to come from sending young persons to prison.

Mr. H. Hynd: I beg to second the Amendment.
The age of 17 is surely a reasonable one in present day circumstances. That, however, is the age which has been fixed only for the courts of summary jurisdiction. The argument in Standing Committee was that the other courts, run by more experienced people, and which have more severe offences which to deal with, might have these special cases which to deal with. It is always very difficult indeed to draw a line at any particular age. The case of the boys shooting their master has been cited. It is perfectly true that they may be just under the age of 17.


On the other hand, they could easily have been one month under the age of 15. It is very difficult to see where the line should be drawn and to say that those on the one side must go to prison and that those on the other side must be dealt with in some other way. I suggest that the people we represent, generally speaking, would regard with horror the prospect of boys and girls being sent to prison under the age of 17. We have these other methods of dealing with them, and I hope that, on reconsideration, the Home Secretary will be able to tell us that the age of 17 will be the bottom age for the courts of summary jurisdiction, the courts of assize and quarter sessions.

Mr. Benson: I must say that this Amendment has a very great appeal for me. It is an appalling thing that we send youngsters of less than 17 years of age to prison. On the other hand, I understand the problem with which the Home Secretary is faced. It is the problem of a small residue, with whom it is extremely difficult to deal. We have to realise that that problem exists. What rather worries me is that in the Criminal Justice Bill which was introduced in 1939, the minimum age for all courts was 16. Now it is 17 for courts of summary jurisdiction and 15 for the higher courts. I wonder what has caused the change in the mind of the Home Secretary between 1939 and 1948? It may be the undoubted growth of delinquency—and serious delinquency —among comparatively young people that has occurred since the war; but these are abnormal times. Had the Criminal Justice Bill of 1939 fortunately been passed we should still have been dealing with the law relating to the imprisonment of juveniles at the minimum age of 16 years. I hardly think that a new Bill would have been introduced to reduce that age. There is a problem, I admit. It is probably very little exacerbated by present conditions. I am not sure that I should vote for the Amendment if it were sent to a Division, but I should be very unhappy indeed if the Clause went through in its present form.
With regard to the imprisonment of juveniles by summary courts, the Home Secretary has taken power by Order in Council to vary the age. It seems to me that, as the present exceptional conditions pass, and as we certainly shall under this Bill develop new forms of institutions for

dealing with the extraordinarily difficult type of youngsters with whom the Clause as drafted is intended to deal, there may be very good grounds, if not immediately, at any rate, later on, for raising the age below which even a higher court may not send a child to prison. I think that first of all the Home Secretary ought to let us know why the age is being dropped from 16 to 15. I would suggest to him that in another place he takes power, as he has done in respect of Summary Courts under Subsection (3) of the Clause, to raise the age, if and when it is possible, for the higher courts, as well as the summary courts.

7.0 p.m.

Earl Winterton: This question raises matters of considerable moral and philosophical importance. I hope that the hon. Members opposite—the hon. Member for West Salford (Mr. Royle) and the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. H. Hynd), and particularly the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) who, but for the fact that I always stick to Parliamentary terms, I would describe as my hon. Friend, because he is—will not think I am saying anything wounding if I say that the strong feeling of emotional desire to avoid what seems to them horror, is sometimes a bad guide in jurisprudence. We should be concerned with the practical realities of the situation. Over and over again, during the 43 years that I have been in this House, I have heard the sort of argument which has just been put forward. It is easy to produce specious arguments, and to carry them to their logical conclusion; but fortunately the House of Commons, like the British public, is never logical. We might just as well say that it would be terrible to imprison an old man of 75, with one year's life ahead of him, as say that it would be terrible to send a boy of 16 to prison. I do not want to enter into a philosophical argument, but when the Home Secretary replies I hope that he will deal with the practical difficulty that there must be power to send to prison certain people of the age under review because there is nowhere else where it would be safe to send them.
I do not want to be provocative, but I must deprecate the use of the word "children" here. Do hon. Members opposite realise that boys of 17 fight in


the Army and the Navy? They are not children at all: if they were, they would not be allowed to fight.

Mr. H. Hynd: Mr. H. Hynd rose—

Earl Winterton: I must be permitted to make my own speech in my own way. I am making a statement of fact, as the hon. Member well knows, and it is no use his trying to controvert the fact. For the benefit of the hon. Member, I will repeat my statement. To describe as "children" young men of an age at which they fight in the Army and Navy is a misuse of the word. [Interruption.] It is no use the hon. Member bubbling with indignation and pointing at me. To call such young men "children" is to use the word sentimentally. They are not children but young persons.
Everybody knows that there are certain young persons who can be dealt with only in the way laid down in the Clause. To judge from the arguments which have been used in this and other matters—though not by the hon. Member for Chesterfield—one would suppose that in recent years nothing had been done to improve our prison system. We on this side of the House are sometimes accused of not sufficiently enhancing the prestige of this country. Yet some of the speeches made by hon. Members opposite during Committee—to which we cannot now refer in detail—and on Report, lead one to believe—though this is not their purpose —that in this country we have the most brutal prison system in the world. In fact we have one of the best, and this Bill, which is ameliorative and non-party, is intended to improve that system. It is only fair to the Home Secretary to say that.
The right hon. Gentleman may reply to his hon. Friends that he is prepared to reconsider this matter. I have risen for the purpose of deprecating both the use of the word "children," and the contention that in no circumstances—and I stand by this—should young ruffians of 16 be sent to prison. During wartime I have seen and fought against people of 16 who thoroughly deserved to be sent to prison. I object to the view that in no circumstances should such people be sent to prison. I would agree with both hon. Members opposite who have supported this Amendment if this were common practice, and if there were in the

Bill no alternative but that these young persons should always be sent to prison. If that were so, I should be with hon. Members opposite 1oo per cent. But I ask the House to have regard tonight to the practical considerations in this case.

Mr. Royle: Has the noble Lord noticed that when we refer to "children" within the terms of the Subsection we are referring to people of 15 years of age, as well as those who have reached 17?

Mr. Ede: We had a very interesting discussion on this question in Committee, in which my hon. Friends who have spoken today took part, and I appreciate the view which they put forward. It is a horrible thing to send anybody under 17 years of age to prison. It is a still more horrible thing, to my mind, that there are some persons under 17 for whom there is no alternative. I can assure the House that it is only with the greatest reluctance, and after trying every alternative, that we come to this final, sad conclusion. Unfortunately, there are persons under 17 years of age whose tempers are so violent, and whose natures are so refractory, that it is not possible to keep them, with safety to the physical and moral welfare of the other inmates, in these institutions, where we are trying to deal with persons of this age.
I, as Home Secretary—as my predecessors have been, and as I am afraid my successors for some time to come will be—am confronted with the fact that in the circumstances there is no alternative treatment for this very small minority of young people. In this Bill the age is reduced from 16 to 15 because, as a result of practical experience, it has been discovered that there were a few cases of boys between 15 and 16 who could not be kept in any other form of institution, and whom public opinion would not have allowed us to liberate into the community without taking some steps to bring home to the offenders the inevitable consequences of the course they were pursuing. One of the boys concerned in the Standon Farm inquiry was between 15 and 16 years of age. I hope it will not go out, as a result of this discussion that any very large number of boys or girls is dealt with in this way.

Mr. Austin: What is the number?

Mr. Ede: I cannot give it at the moment, but it is very small indeed. I


can assure my hon. Friend that when I am asked to consent to this course and do so, it is always with the greatest reluctance. Even in the Standon Farm case I took a very long time, and considered all the other courses which might have enabled me to avoid sending the lads to prison, before I finally decided that there was no alternative. I am sure that any other person who has served in my office, irrespective of his party, would adopt the same attitude towards this problem.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for one thing he said. In the course of the discussions on this Bill some hon. Members have made statements which might indicate that in this country we have a prison system of which we ought to be thoroughly ashamed. I am not saying our system is perfect; it is a long way from being perfect; and because of circumstances of our times it is not so good as it otherwise might be. During the past few days I have had the privilege of showing a very distinguished American visitor to this country round some of the institutions in which we deal with juvenile offenders and young persons. I was assured that this visitor to our shores was impressed with the fact that in dealing with these young people we are a long way ahead of the most enlightened States of the United States of America.
It is the ambition of everybody connected with this system, which is designed for these young people whom we desire to prevent becoming recruits to the criminal class, that it shall operate in an atmosphere as reformative, helpful and constructive as possible. Unfortunately, there is a number—a very limited number—of young people who, were an attempt made to keep them inside our more progressive institutions, would, through their evil influence and the way in which they decline to co-operate with those whose ambition it is to help them, wreck the work being done there. I should like to be able to accept an Amendment of this kind, but I have to face the realities in connection with the office I fill. If I accepted this Amendment, I should then be in a position that I could not deal with the very limited number of these young people in the interests of society, and particularly in the interests of the society with which they will be associated when they come within the penal system of the country.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 18, line 6, leave out "appearing to the court to be.".—[Mr. Younger.]

Consequential Amendments made.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 18, line 12, to leave out from "court," to "is," in line 14.
It would be for the convenience of the Committee if we discussed this Amendment with the Amendment in line 15, which immediately follows. In Committee, I undertook to consider amending this Clause to make it clear that "character" means something more than the past record of the individual, and that the court should also take into consideration the mental and physical condition of the individual. These Amendments give effect to this undertaking. The Clause places a duty on the court to obtain information about the circumstances of the case before imposing imprisonment on a person under 21. It is undesirable that the duty of obtaining information about the mental and physical condition should be placed on the court, because this would mean that the court would have to have a medical report in the case of every offender under 21. This danger was pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) when we were discussing an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hanley (Dr. Stross). As my hon. and learned Friend said, the effect of such a requirement would be to place a very heavy burden on the rates and on the over-worked medical profession.
Accordingly, the Amendment provides that the court, in addition to obtaining information about the circumstances, shall take into account any information before the court which is relevant to the offender's character and to his physical and mental condition. There will be no obligation on the court to obtain such information where there is nothing in the circumstances of the case to suggest that any such inquiry is necessary. They will, of course, always have information before them as to the past record, where it is known, of the person concerned. This Amendment has been very carefully considered in order to carry out the undertaking I gave.

Mr. Benson: I wish to thank my right hon. Friend for meeting so successfully the point which was raised in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 18, line 15, after "and," insert:
for the purpose of determining whether any other method of dealing with any such person is appropriate the court shall obtain and consider information about the circumstances, and shall take into account any information before the court which is relevant to his character and his physical and mental condition.
(3)."—[Mr. Ede.]

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 18, line 15, after "court," to insert "of quarter sessions or a court."
This Amendment and the next two Amendments, in lines 15 and 16 respectively, carry out an undertaking given in Committee. It applies the requirement to state the reasons for imposing imprisonment on a person under 21 to courts of quarter sessions. Courts of summary jurisdiction have to give their reasons, and I was asked to extend this provision, which I have done.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 18, line 16, after "person," insert:
as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection.

In line 18, after "and," insert:
if the court is a court of summary jurisdiction."—[Mr. Ede.]

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 18, line 22, to leave out from "Council," to "prohibit," in line 23.
This Amendment, together with. the Amendments in lines 31 and 37, are in response to a request made to my right hon. Friend that he should introduce the affirmative Resolution procedure if it should be found necessary, by order in council, to raise the minimum age below which persons may not be sent to prison.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 18, line 25, leave out "appearing to the court to be."

In line 31, leave out from "sexes," to "until," in line 33, and insert:
Provided that no Order in Council shall be made under this subsection.

In line 37, at end, insert:
(4) A draft of any Order in Council under this section shall be laid before Parliament, and the draft shall not be submitted to His Majesty in Council unless each House of Parliament presents an Address to His Majesty praying that the Order be made."—[Mr. Younger.]

CLAUSE 17.—(Detention in a detention centre.)

Amendment made: In page 18, line 42, leave out
appearing to the court to be," and insert "who is."—[Mr. Younger.]

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 19, line 2, at the end, to insert:
and that he may thereafter be required to be under the supervision of a probation officer for a period equal to the period for which he is ordered to be detained.
This raises a question which was discussed on the Committee stage, in regard to which the right hon. Gentleman finally said he would give consideration before the Report stage. He undertook to consider whether the words he proposed including in the Fifth Schedule were sufficient to meet the point. Under Clause 17, there is power to send a person under 21 and not less than 14 to a detention centre for a period from three to six months. My Amendment proposes to deal with what should happen to that person when he comes out of the detention centre, where, as the right hon. Gentleman said, he will learn a short, sharp lesson.
It would be an improvement to this Bill, as well as an advantage, if the court, sentencing a young man to a detention centre, has power to say that he will go to a detention centre for one month and will thereafter be under the probation officer for a period of three or four months. It is very important that the young man should be placed under the probation officer. He should feel that he has an obligation to the court to comply with the requirements of the probation officer after he has served his period in a detention centre. I think that we may get better co-operation in that way, rather than by relying solely on the voluntary efforts of the probation officer.
The right hon. Gentleman, in meeting this point, pointed out that he would make provision for probation officers and after-care committees to look after the person who has been in a detention centre. I am sure that the House will welcome


any steps taken to that end. It is quite a different thing to arrange with a body of the highest repute to take on that duty, than to arrange that the individual concerned shall be ordered by a court to be upon probation after service of his period of detention. I hope that I have made the point clear to the right hon. Gentleman. I am not quite sure that I succeeded in doing so on the Committee stage, having regard to his answer.
I feel that one does not want a young man to be in a detention centre a moment longer than is necessary, but it may facilitate a court which has a difficult task in deciding what is the right thing to do, and it may enable the court to pass a shorter period of detention, if they had an opportunity, which they have not under this Bill as it now stands, of saying that there shall be detention for one month or six weeks, and, thereafter, the young person will be placed on probation. They cannot do that now. All they can say now is that the young person shall go to a detention centre for three to six months, and, thereafter, it will be left to the excellent voluntary work of the after-care committees and probation officers, but with this important element lacking—that the young gentleman will not be under the obligation to comply with the requirements of the probation order.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I beg to second the Amendment.
One aspect which has not been touched upon concerns the probation officer. If the young offender goes wrong later, he will come into the hands of the probation officer in some form or other, and I think that it is important that the probation officer should be able to have custody of him as soon as he has finished his period of detention.

Mr. Ede: There is not much, I think, between the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) and myself on this point. I should like to assure him that I understood his argument previously, although I may not have expressed myself in reply to it in the best way. The fault was mine, and not his, in not making the point clear. Probation for people over 14 is an arrangement that is entered into with the consent of the probationer. We might be faced with the situation that it was thought right to send a young person to

a detention centre. When he heard that, he might be unwilling to consent to be placed on probation after that period. I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Gentleman means that, in this particular case, his consent should not be sought, and that he should be sentenced to probation or not. That would entirely alter the relationship of the probationer to the probation service.
That is the difficulty with which I am confronted. It may be that a person perfectly suitable for a detention centre would in fact not be sent there because he declined to accept the probation period, if it were left voluntary. If it were made compulsory, then his cooperation with the probation officer might not be as effective as we would desire it to be. The success of probation depends upon some appreciable measure of co-operation on the part of the probation officer. If he regards it as merely an association that has been forced on to him, I do not think that the best effect will be obtained from it. That, as shortly and as clearly as I can put it, is my objection to the form of words which the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to insert into the Bill.
I have provided in the Fifth Schedule that it is part of the probation officer's duty to advise, assist and befriend in such cases and in such manner as may be prescribed, persons who have been released from custody, and this provision was inserted in the Bill with these particular young people most clearly in mind. I suggest that the efforts of the probation officer to establish contact with the young person will probably be more effective in this class of case if the association is a voluntary one, entered into with consent and not forced upon him by an order of the court. I am very grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the interest which he has taken in this matter, and I think that we both have the same object in view. My own fear is that if we make a compulsory probation order, the probation officers do not start off with the kind of relationship which exists where the probationer has consented to the probation order.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: With the leave of the House, may I say that the right hon. Gentleman has obviously given great thought to this matter. I was not suggesting compulsory probation orders.


I had in mind that the young offender might well agree to submit to the probation order at the time he is told that he has to go to a detention centre. In these cases, I should have thought that it would have been an advantage that the court should have power to make a probation order. I was not suggesting that it should be compulsory in the least degree. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to give this matter a little further thought. In view, however, of what he has said I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move in page 19, line 22, to leave out "appears to the court to be," and to insert "is."
This and the following five Amendments are all on the same drafting point, namely, the evidence required by a court of the age of persons coming before it.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

CLAUSE 18.—(Borstal training.)

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 20, line 23, to leave out from "to," to "satisfied," in line 29, and insert:
quarter sessions for sentence in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
(4) An offender so committed as aforesaid, shall be committed—

(a) where the court of summary jurisdiction acts for a county other than the County of London, to the appeal committee of the quarter sessions for that county;
(b) in any other case, to the next court of quarter sessions having jurisdiction in the county, borough or place for which the court of summary jurisdiction acts;
and where the offender is so committed to an appeal committee, the clerk to the court of summary jurisdiction shall notify the clerk of the peace, and the clerk of the peace shall give notice to the prosecutor and to the governor of the remand centre or prison to which the offender is committed of the date on which the case will be dealt with by the appeal committee, being the next practicable sitting of that committee.
(5) Where an offender is so committed for sentence as aforesaid, the appeal committee or court of quarter sessions shall inquire into the circumstances of the case and may—
(a) if.
The House may remember that in Committee Amendments were made to Clause 27 which related to commital for sentences

so that the commital should be to the appeals committee of quarter sessions in counties except in the county of London. The object of this Amendment and the series to page 20 which follows it is to bring the Clause into line with the amended procedure. Clause 18 deals with the committal for sentences for Borstal training. There is in this respect no distinction to be drawn between committal for other types of sentences and committal for Borstal training.
The reason it is considered appropriate in the other instance under Clause 27 that the appeal should go to the appeals committee is that in any event the appeal against conviction would come before that committee, and if there is to be a committal for sentence it was thought that it was better that it should go before the same tribunal, so that the two could be treated together by the same court. It was also clear that by bringing it before the appeals committee a good deal of time could be saved, because the appeals committee could meet any time. There is a provision under Clause 18 to ensure that committal will not be to assizes as it can be at present, but to quarter sessions in order to bring the procedure of the two sections into line. I hope with that explanation the House will be prepared to agree to the Amendment.

Mr. Maude: On consideration of what the Under-Secretary has said in regard to Clauses 27 and 18, I am rather worried, and I would urge that the matter should be given very careful consideration, because I am inclined to think that we are going to have a tremendous rush to quarter sessions. Persons will decide that it would be better to exercise their rights to go for trial rather than be tried by the magistrates and then sent on to quarter sessions. They will be advised by their legal advisers not to be tried at petty sessions with the result we will get a rush into our courts of quarter sessions. I very much fear that this will be the practical result of these Clauses, and I would ask that this matter should be given very careful consideration.

Mr. Ede: The hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Maude) has been very helpful throughout the Bill, and I welcome the criticism he has made. I will have it examined to see if the fears he has are likely to be realised, and if they are and it


is possible to do anything to reduce them, it will be done.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 20, line 31, leave out from "training," to first "in," in line 32, and insert "or (b)."

In line 36, after "sessions," insert "or by an appeal committee."

In line 38, after "court," insert "or committee."—[Mr. Younger.]

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 21, line r, after "report," to insert "or representations in writing."
This Amendment and the group that follows are really drafting Amendments. The first ensures that if a report or representations in writing by the Prison Commissioners are considered by the courts, as they can be under Subsection (4), they will be made available to counsel or solicitor of the offender. It is a drafting Amendment, but it is one of some small importance.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

CLAUSE 19.—(Corrective training and preventive detention.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 21, line 41, at the end, to insert:
since he attained the age of seventeen?
This Amendment embodies the principle of an Amendment that was moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon) in Committee to exclude for the purposes of the qualifications of corrective training previous convictions before a certain age. My hon. and gallant Friend wished to insert the age of 16 and I suggested the age of 17, which is the limit age when a person is regarded as a young person for the purposes of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 22, line 29, at the end, to insert:
(5) A copy of any report or representations in writing made to the court by the Prison Commisioners for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection shall be given by the court to the offender or his counsel or solicitor.
This and the next Amendment are drafting Amendments. This Amendment requires that a copy of any representation

in writing made to the court is to be given by the court to the offender or his counsel or solicitor, and it applies to such reports the requirement which was inserted earlier with regard to reports in procedure.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 22, line 30, leave out subsection (5).— [Mr. Ede.]

CLAUSE 24.—(Remand for inquiry into physical or mental condition.)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 26, line 29, to leave out from "to," to "any," in line 30.
This and the two following Amendments relate to the payment of allowances to medical practitioners who attend a court to give evidence. They are drafting Amendments designed to ensure that allowances shall only be payable where the witness actually attends and does not merely give evidence by means of a report.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

CLAUSE 27.—(Committal for sentence in respect of indictable offences tried summarily.)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 30, line 30, at the end, to insert:
(5) In relation to an offender committed for sentence under this Section, subsection (1) of Section twenty-one of this Act shall have effect as if for the words 'by the verdict of a jury,' there were substituted the words 'by the appeal committee or of the court of quarter sessions, as the case may be, and not by the verdict of a jury.'
This Amendment relates to the method, by which an issue should be tried relating to proof of previous conviction of persons who are up for possible sentence to preventive detention or corrective training. It is provided that the issue of a disputed previous conviction should be tried by jury but, as it has been further provided that certain persons may be committed to an appeal committee or quarter sessions for sentence, and as one type of sentence might be corrective training or preventive detention, and as there would be no jury at an appeal committee, it is necessary to make provision to enable the court, or the appeal committee without the jury, to try the issue.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 28.—(Challenge of jurors and separation of juries.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 30, line 33, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 34, and to insert:
A person arraigned on an indictment for any felony or misdemeanour may challenge not more than seven jurors without cause.
This deals with a point raised on Second Reading and in Committee by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) and others. It deals with a matter of some considerable importance. This Amendment will ensure that any person arraigned on an indictment will be able to challenge not more than seven jurors without showing cause. Previously the number has been much larger. We had originally intended that this right should disappear.
I am informed by lawyers that it is very rarely exercised. In fact, although I have, as a magistrate, had to attend quarter sessions on many occasions, I have never seen it exercised. The only occasion on which I have heard it mentioned was on an occasion when the clerk of the peace had forgotten to warn the prisoner, who was a man of some experience in these matters, of his rights. At the end of the swearing of the jury, he drew attention to the lack of consideration which he had received, but he did not challenge anyone when a new jury was called into the box. I think that he thought that he had sufficiently asserted the important principle which was at stake.
7.45 p.m.
We feel, and I think that it was felt by the Committee, that the arrangement we make here will adequately safeguard the rights of accused persons. They preserve what is an historic feature of the work of the courts, a thing in itself not to be despised. We also carry out something which is not in the existing law. We give the right of peremptory challenge to persons arraigned for misdemeanour as well as for felony. In these days when those two words have a quite different significance in actual reality to what they have in the popular mind, that again is a not unimportant alteration in the law. I hope that the right hon. Member for North Leeds and other hon. Members will feel that the undertakings we gave are fully met by this Amendment.

Mr. Osbert Peake: I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman not only for preserving this rarely used but, I believe, valuable right of peremptory challenge, but also for extending it to cases of misdemeanour. The right hon. Gentleman has met us very fully indeed, and we are well satisfied with what lie now proposes.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I also wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for moving this Amendment. I think it was I who first raised the matter in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) also raised it, and the Minister has acceded to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite rather than to any suggestion. He has adopted a modified form. I thank him for what he has done, but I am sorry that he did not accede to my suggestion in toto. This is a historic right which was enjoyed by accused persons, and though it was not used as frequently as was the right to challenge for cause, it is a right which may possibly, under present circumstances, be used more frequently. It may be used in the case of a Jew who is on trial. He may see a Fascist coming to the box to be sworn, and he may be unable to prove that that is so. If he has a right of peremptory challenge, he can challenge without showing cause. It is obvious that there are other cases in which this right may be most useful. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not made it a little more expansive, but I thank him for what he has done.

Sir T. Moore: As three is a lucky number, I feel that I too would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for this generous and reasonable concession which fully satisfies all the arguments which were used in Committee. There is a traditional sense of freedom in this country. There are those who like to preserve a right of way which has become part and parcel of their daily life. This is a similar right of way for those who are charged under this Clause. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has shown not only a sense of the feeling of the House, but of the feeling of the country.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 30, line 35, leave out from beginning, to "shall," and insert:
In any criminal proceeding, any challenge to jurors for cause."—[Mr. Ede.]

CLAUSE 29.—(Appeals from courts of summary jurisdiction to quarter sessions.)

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 30, line 45, after "conviction," to insert "order."
Under this Clause a person convicted by a court of summary jurisdiction shall have the right of appeal (a) if he has pleaded guilty, against his sentence and (b) in any other case, against the conviction or sentence, to a court of quarter sessions. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) raised this matter in Committee, and suggested that after the word "sentence" the words "or order" should be inserted. The Under-Secretary, in reply, was inclined to make the case that although there were some orders against which the right of appeal already existed by statute, there were many other cases where there was no right of appeal, because the order was of only a trivial character. The Under-Secretary gave a promise, when pressed, that he would look more fully into the point to try to discover how wide the Amendment would go if it were inserted in the Bill, and I would like to know the result of his investigation.

Mr. Janner: This is a rather important point. No matter how trivial the offence may appear to the public in general, the person concerned very frequently feels very deeply about it. It is a mistake to think that the man who appears in a petty sessional court undergoes a lesser ordeal than a man who has to appear in a higher court. The atmosphere of the police court is quite strange to the vast majority of those who find themselves in that court. Magistrates and officials are perfectly at ease, but usually the person who has to appear before the court finds himself in quite a new atmosphere. Even if the summons against him is for a comparatively trivial offence, he may feel that a stigma will be attached to him for the rest of his life. I have heard it said, even in police court proceedings, that it is foolish for the person who is before the court to appeal against a small fine or a small order. But I have found from my own experience that a man of hitherto good character very often smarts much more under a small order than the man who has a heavier sentence imposed upon him in another court, and who has been accustomed to receiving such sentences.

Sir Peter Bennett: I would like to support the Amendment, and especially what has just been said by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner). Often there is a feeling of intense indignation on the part of many people who have an order imposed upon them, and if the Home Secretary can do anything to meet that position he would remove the anxiety that any injustice which they feel is being done to them cannot be put right.

Mr. Ede: We have carefully examined this matter since the Committee stage, but our difficulty is the very wide range of matters which is covered by the word "order." All orders which courts of summary jurisdiction can make appear not only in public Bills but in private Bills promoted by municipal corporations and other authorities, and it is very difficult indeed to discover exactly how wide we should go if we included this word in the Bill. I hoped it might be possible to arrive at a limiting definition that would enable me to be sure that I had covered all the substantial grievances, but there are orders which, I think, it might be difficult to include. For instance, is a dog, having been proved dangerous, and already having had not merely his first bite but something else, to be allowed to roam uncontrolled while the appeal is being heard, during which he may perhaps be dangerous again and cause consternation to the inhabitants of the district?
There are other orders in connection with which it appears desirable that a quick and final decision should be reached. I am, however, not unmindful of what has been said by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), and those who have supported him, about the grievance which people sometimes feel when they find that something has been done in a court of summary jurisdiction from which there is no appeal. That being so, I will continue to try to find a way to limit the point so as to include what it is reasonable to include while excluding that which, in the interests of proper administration, I do not believe anyone would desire to see included. This will involve making a very thorough search to find out all the cases in which an order can be made, but I will undertake to see, between now and consideration of the Bill in another place, if I


can do something to meet the view which, I know, is strongly held by various Members of the House.

Mr. Peake: On that undertaking, and being confident that the right hon. Gentleman will do his utmost to meet the case which has been put forward, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Sir T. Moore: It occurs to me that a form of words which might possibly assist the Home Secretary would be "any order casting a reflection on the character of the defendant." That is what is at the bottom of the argument which was used by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner).

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 32, line 5, at the end, to insert:
(7) The powers of a court of summary jurisdiction under paragraph (iv) of the said Subsection (1) (which relates to the grant of bail to an appellant to quarter sessions from a decision of a court of summary jurisdiction) may be exercised by any justice acting for the petty sessional division or place for which that court acts.
This is a useful Amendment which has been suggested to me by the Justices Clerks Society and is a result of their experience in the working of their courts. It deals with the difficulties that arise in respect of courts which meet very infrequently. There are many courts which meet daily or almost daily and others which meet weekly, and in those cases no very great difficulty is likely to occur, but since I have been in office I have had to deal with complaints which have been made with regard to one court which met only monthly. It is clear that a person who had to wait to come before a court meeting monthly in order to apply for bail might, if he was very unlucky, spend 27 days waiting for the matter to be dealt with.
This will enable a justice acting for the petty sessional division or the place where the court sits, to act. I am quite sure that no one desires to see people kept unnecessarily in detention merely because there is some difficulty about arranging a court at which an application for bail could be considered. This Amendment, coming from a body of men

who I know take great interest in the humane side of the work, is one which I can confidently commend to the House.

Mr. Janner: I rise to thank my right hon. Friend for having moved this, because it deals with an extremely important point. Very often in the course of practice when a person desires to appeal the difficulty presents itself to those appearing for him and to himself that he cannot get a magistrate in a particular court to grant bail because the court is not sitting. The right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on having accepted the views of the Justices Clerks Society which will receive the approval of all Members of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 33.—(Taking of finger-prints by order of justices.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 35, line 10, to leave out from the beginning, to "on," in line 21, and to insert:
Where any person not less than fourteen years of age who has been taken into custody is charged with an offence before a court of summary jurisdiction, the court may, if it thinks fit.
This Amendment and the next two Amendments—in lines 25 and 26—deal with the Clause which relates to the taking of finger-prints, a Clause about which some misgiving was expressed on Second Reading and which received very careful investigation during the Committee stage. These Amendments represent an agreement which I think was reached on the Committee by people who had taken differing views about it at first, and I think it sufficiently ensures the taking of finger-prints without imposing undue hardship and indignity on the persons concerned.
In the first place, we exempt from it altogether children under 14 years. A doubt was expressed as to the meaning of the words, "appears or is brought." We are omitting those words from the amended version of this part of the Clause, and the amended version makes it quite clear that three conditions must be fulfilled before a court can order fingerprints to be taken. The person must be over 14 years of age, he must have been taken into custody, and he must be charged with an offence before the court.
It was also thought that it was not quite clear that the court was given an adequate discretion in the matter, and we have therefore added the words, "if it thinks fit," in order to make it quite clear that the court has to consider whether it is a case in which this power should be given to the police. I commend these Amendments to the House because they represent a very considerable effort on the part of all hon. Members of the Committee to assist the cause of justice while at the same time safeguarding individual liberty and human dignity. I hope that especially those hon. Members of this House who took part in our deliberations in Committee will feel that I have covered the points which I undertook to cover.

Mr. Grimston: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) particularly raised the point that a person should be taken into custody before his finger-prints were taken, and the Home Secretary has met that point. I think he has also met the other point which was raised. I am obliged to him for having done so.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I regret that the Amendments do not meet the objections which I expressed to this Clause. There can be no objection to finger-prints being taken from all citizens in general, but there are many objections to fingerprints being taken from persons who are not proved to be guilty. This Clause divides the population into three classes —those who are guilty and whose fingerprints are properly taken and preserved, those who are not guilty and whose finger-prints are taken and destroyed on acquittal, and those who are not guilty, were never charged and whose fingerprints were never taken.
This division would not occur if fingerprints were taken in general from all citizens, but this is in fact a discrimination not only between the innocent and the guilty but between those who are never charged and those who are found to have been wrongly charged. It is unfair, illogical and unjust. It could be obviated by providing that finger-prints should not be taken until after a person is found guilty. It is wrong that an innocent person should be forced to allow his finger-prints to be taken before he is proved guilty. This

Clause provides that force may be used, and it is entirely wrong that force should be used on a person who has not been proved guilty and that such a person should be forced to provide evidence against himself, because that is what taking his finger-prints amount to, and that is contrary to the traditions of our system of law.
Under our system, the onus of proof is on the prosecution, and the accused person is deemed to be not guilty until he is proved guilty. Yet here we have an infringement of the right of the citizen by forcing him to allow his finger-prints to be taken before he is proved guilty. I hope the Home Secretary will reconsider this Clause in order to make it more consonant with the liberty of the citizen as we understand it.

Sir T. Moore: The Home Secretary has fully met the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes) in accepting Subsection (4) in which he has now provided that:
All finger-prints …shall be destroyed on the acquittal of the person concerned.
That is exactly what the Committee wanted. That takes away that perpetual stigma from the person involved, which was exactly the point stressed in Committee. The Clause with these Amendments is a great improvement on the original drafting, and I congratulate the Home Secretary on making it so much more humane and effective.

Mr. Ede: By the leave of the House, I would like to say to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes) that this Clause is a great deal more protective of the rights of the citizen than the practice which prevails in the country part of which he has the honour to represent in this House. His reforming zeal might now be transferred to the Scottish Grand Committee, if he feels that this might be an occasion when the law of Scotland might be assimilated to the law of England.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 25, after "or," insert "if the person to whom the order relates is remanded in custody."

In line 26, leave out from "which," to second "is," and insert "he."—[Mr. Ede.]

CLAUSE 34.—(Evidence by certificate.)

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 36, line 9, after "partner," to insert "or employee."
On the Committee Stage it was suggested that the word "employee" should be added in order to show that an employee might come under the provision of paragraph (b). The Home Secretary said at that time that he would have the position further looked at, although there was a difficulty. We shall be glad to hear what he can tell us about that.

Mr. Gage: I beg to Second the Amendment.

Mr. Ede: This, again, is a matter which we have examined with great care, and I wrote a letter to the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. ManninghamBuller) giving him the result of our inquiries into the subject matter of this Amendment. The main usefulness of the provision in the Clause as to proof of ownership by a corporation has been in cases where the vehicle belongs to a large corporation, for example, the National Transport Board, whose headquarters may be far distant from the place where the offence was committed. It may be necessary to charge the corporation with aiding and abetting an offence, or with some specific offence for which the corporation and not the driver is responsible.
If, for example, the offence is in connection with the driving of a van or lorry which comes from a local railway depôt, the police can go to the local depôt and get a statement from the responsible person there that the van or lorry is one of the Board's vehicles. They will then have to serve a summons on the secretary of the National Transport Board in London, and this will be done either by post or, more probably, by a London police officer taking the summons to the headquarters office. If a representative of the Board does not appear at the proceedings, and no comunication is sent by the Board to the court, the police are able, under Regulation 17 (A) to use the statement of the Board's employee at the local depôt as evidence that the Board own the vehicle, and the court can then deal with the summons. If the offence is committed by a firm which is not a corporation, the police may serve the summons on the firm as they can on the secretary of a

corporation. They will have to serve the summons on one of the partners or, if it is a one-man business, they will have to ascertain the name of the owner. In either case the police will have to find out before they serve the summons to what person the summons should be addressed. A statement by an employee of the firm that the vehicle belongs to that firm would not dispense the police from having to ascertain who was the owner or, if there is a partnership, the name of one of the partners, as any statement by the employee as to what person was the owner of the vehicle would frequently be worthless.
It is for this reason that the statement which can be used as evidence of ownership is limited in the case of a firm to a statement by a partner of the firm. It is not the purpose of this Clause to make provision to allow any statement by the driver of a vehicle as to its ownership to be used as evidence. It is the experience of the police that statements by drivers as to the ownership of the vehicle they are driving are often most unreliable, and although in form the regulation will allow such statements to be used as evidence, where the owner is a corporation, in practice such statements are treated by the police with considerable caution, and in the Metropolitan Police district, at least, are never used as evidence.
It would for the reasons that I have given, be of little practical value to the police to extend the existing provision to statements by employees of a firm, and it would be a mistake to put in the statute a provision which would encourage the police to use as evidence statements, however inaccurate or worthless, by drivers as to the ownership of a vehicle. The provisions of the existing regulation were very carefully drafted so as to make provision by which police time could be saved, without running the risk of a person being convicted upon inadequate evidence. Therefore I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that it is not desirable that this Amendment should be made.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Grimston: By leave of the House may I say that the Home Secretary has obviously been into this very carefully and has given an explanation which, for


my part, is perfectly reasonable. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in line 16, at the end, to insert:
(3) In any proceedings for an offence consisting of the stealing of goods in the possession of the British Transport Commission or any Executive (other than the Hotels Executive) constituted under Section five of the Transport Act, 1947, or for receiving goods so stolen knowing them to have been stolen, or for an offence under Section twelve or eighteen or Subsection (z) of Section thirty-three of the Larceny Act, 1916, or Sections fifty to fifty-six of the Post Office Act, 1908, a statutory declaration made by any person—

(a) that he dispatched or received or failed to receive any goods or postal packet or that any goods or postal packet when dispatched or received by him were in a particular state or condition; or
(b) that a vessel, vehicle or aircraft was at any time employed by or under the Post Office for the transmission of postal packets under contract,
shall be admissible as evidence of the facts stated in the declaration.
This Amendment, and the three immediate subsequent Amendments to lines 18, 23 and 34, which are merely verbal consequential Amendments, had its origin in an Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) on the Committee stage, and an undertaking by my right hon. Friend that he would look sympathetically at this and see whether he could find an Amendment which was even better than that proposed by the hon. Gentleman. In substance I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that this covers his point, and that it goes a little wider. Its object is to meet the great difficulty found, particularly by the railways, in having to bring their servants possibly from the furthest end of the country, in order to hive purely formal evidence which, in 99 cases out of too, is not in dispute, simply about the dispatch of goods which may be under consideration on a charge of theft or something of that kind.
The only reservation which my right hon. Friend expressed when considering the hon. Gentleman's Amendment was that he felt it might be not only the railways but others which would be concerned, and the House will observe that this Amendment extends also to the cases handled by the Post Office. There is also in paragraph (b) a new provision which

had not been thought of at the time of the earlier discussion. This will enable evidence to be given by statutory declaration that a vehicle, vessel or aircraft was employed by or under the Post Office for the transmission of postal packets under contracts, and will avoid the necessity of producing the actual contract in court. This will be a useful provision, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Gage: I have scanned this Amendment with a careful and critical eye, and I confess that I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. It is a better Amendment than that which I originally thought of, and I think the additions to it are certainly to the general advantage of the administration of the criminal law. It only remains for me to express my gratitude, to which I am sure is allied the gratitude of hundreds, almost thousands, of unfortunate employees of railway companies and other services who, in the past, have had to make long journeys and wearisome stays in other towns in order to give purely formal evidence.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

CLAUSE 35.—(Final speeches.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 36, line 37, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 42, and to insert:
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Section two of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1865, as amended by Section three of the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, the prosecution shall not be entitled to the right of reply upon the trial of any person on indictment on the ground only that documents have been put in evidence for the defence.
The Clause in the Bill was moved by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), and accepted. It is felt that the words on the Order Paper are rather more appropriate than those which appear in the existing Clause. I thank the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) for what he said about the efforts of my hon. Friend in regard to the drafting of the Amendment we have just discussed. We have made another effort to improve the drafting here, and I hope that we have succeeded.

Mr. Gage: I might reiterate my thanks and say that here again, although one should not be astonished, the resources


which the right hon. Gentleman has are a great deal better than ours.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 36, line 43, to leave out from the beginning, to the second "or," in line 46, and to insert:
(2) A person charged with an offence before a court of summary jurisdiction.
This Amendment deals with a matter to which we gave considerable thought in Committee. It deals with a suggestion as to the rearrangement of counsel's speeches in court. I am bound to say that by the time we reached this stage in the Bill, we were prepared to believe from the large number of counsel we had in the Committee that this was a most important matter. There were occasions when we felt that they should be encouraged to make their speeches in court rather than in Committee. I had to point out, when I. accepted the Clause, that I had no intention of accepting the second part of the Clause, which would allow two speeches by defending counsel and solicitor, one before and one after the evidence, because that would involve giving the prosecution the right of a second speech, and four speeches in courts of summary jurisdiction, I thought, would be an excessive number. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), not being without experience in these matters, suggested giving discretion to the courts to allow a second speech by the defence and I undertook to consider this before the present stage of the Bill.
This Amendment and that to line 2 are drafting Amendments. The remaining Amendments to this Clause, in line 4 and line 6, give direction to the court to allow a speech by defending counsel or solicitor both at the conclusion of the case for the prosecution and the conclusion of the evidence, and provide that where this is allowed the prosecution shall be entitled to the right of reply. I hope that I have met the contentions of the various hon. and learned Members engaged in the controversy on this Clause, and I commend the Amendments to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 37, line 2, at end, insert "at his discretion."

In line 4, leave out from second "the," to end of line 5, and insert
person charged, the court may allow him or his counsel or solicitor to.

In line 6, leave out from "both," to end of line, and insert
at the conclusion of the case for the prosecution and at the conclusion of the evidence, but in that case the prosecution shall be entitled to the right of reply. "—[Mr. Ede.]

CLAUSE 44.—(Rules for the management of prisons, remand centres, detention centres and Borstal institutions.)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move in page 41, line to leave out "such."
This Amendment, and the next Amendment to line 12, to leave out "as is expedient," are Amendments to the Subsection which lays down that rules are to be made by the Secretary of State to ensure that a person charged with an offence while under detention in prison or in a Borstal or other institution, shall be given a proper opportunity of presenting his case. As the Subsection was drafted, some misgiving was felt by some hon. Members that the words
make such provision as is expedient
might be used as an excuse for not making the rule at all. That was never the intention of the draftsmen when the Amendment was accepted, making "may" into "shall," and we now propose to omit the words "such g as is expedient," so that the rules must be, and will be made.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I ask pardon for intruding into what has become largely a mutual admiration society of lawyers, but I would like some further enlightenment on the dropping of the word "such" and the phrase "as is expedient." Can it be that all the Law Officers have come to the conclusion to adopt the aphorism:
Expediency is man's wisdom and doing right is God's"?
I would like to know something more about these words, and I ask the Home Secretary if he has given further consideration to certain points brought up in Committee. Rules made under this Clause are to ensure that
a person who is charged with any offence under the rules shall be given a proper opportunity of presenting his case.
What exactly does that mean? Under those rules a person can be prosecuted


for offences against the rules of prison discipline. It may be that the prisoner will be charged under a regulation for making an assault on a prison officer. I would like to know what protection the prisoner is to have and what are to be his rights of defence. In Committee the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage), and other hon. Members, asked about the legal representation of prisoners charged with an offence against prison regulations. I would like this point to be cleared up. Does the Clause mean that a prisoner who is charged with assaulting a warder is to be entitled to legal representation by a solicitor or by counsel? This is a very important point, especially owing to the fact that a Subsection in this Clause effects changes under which prisoners may be charged with—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I gave the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) a good deal of latitude, but he appears to be proceeding very wide of the Amendment now, and to be discussing the Clause or the Subsection as a whole. I can allow him to ask for an explanation of the Amendments, but I cannot allow him to go further. He must deal with the Amendments on the Order Paper.

Mr. Janner: On that point of Order, may I ask you to reconsider your decision, Sir, because the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is dealing with the question of a prisoner presenting his case, and, as I understand it, the severity of the penalties and the evidence may be considered at the time, and it is something of extreme importance in relation to the presenting of that case. I gathered that the point which my hon. Friend was seeking to make was that legal representation should be accorded to an individual who was charged with one of these offences. I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to say that he is entitled to give the illustrations that he is at present giving?

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot agree with the hon. Member. The two Amendments before the House are in order to make the Subsection read:
Rules made under this Section shall make provision for ensuring …
That is the only matter before the House. It is no doubt competent for the hon.

Member to ask in what way that will improve the opportunity, but he is going much further than that.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Further to that point of Order. The wording of the Subsection is:
—such provision as is expedient.…
That clearly might mean legal representation, and I submit that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is raising an important point, because the question of "such provision as is expedient" may be quite different from the question of provision. The former might clearly include legal representation, which may be of great importance to a person who is in prison, and who has no access to the law.

Mr. Ernrys Hughes: I submit that the two points of Order, which I much appreciate, emphasise the point which I wish 'to make. Although on the surface I may seem to be wandering slightly from the point I was making, the word "such" and the words "as is expedient," are relevant to the argument under discussion. In Committee we had a considerable 'amount of discussion, and I would like the Home Secretary to clear up the point. For example, if a prisoner is charged with an offence against a prison warder, he may be sentenced to be flogged. Such a case is brought before the visiting magistrates. I wish to ask whether the prisoner will be entitled to legal representation. It is a very important point for the man concerned. I have before me certain cases which the Home Secretary had under consideration and which were reported in this year's Prison Commissioners' Report. They add point to the argument I am making.
According to the Appendix to the Prison Commissioners' Report, there was a trial of prisoners before the authorities at Cardiff and they were sentenced to be birched or flogged. When the Home Secretary came to consider the cases, he decided to reduce the sentence in one case from 28 strokes of the birch to 12. I submit that if the prisoners had had the legal advice of my hon. Friends the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) or the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) they might not have been birched at all. I am not putting this matter from a legal point of view but from the point of view of the man who is in gaol, and the man


who is always against the State machine and needs the assistance of legal luminaries to put his case properly; the illiterate, primitive man shut up in gaol, with all the apparatus of the law against him. I suggest that if he is entitled to have legal advice in a law court outside, it is more essential that he should be legally represented behind prison walls. The Home Secretary has admitted by his action in the case I have quoted that magistrates are not infallible, and in this case he reduced an inhumane sentence. I ask him to make it clear in this Clause that the prisoner behind prison walls will have legal representation when he is so vitally affected.

Mr. Gage: I think that this matter was originally raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chester (Mr. Nield). The hon. Member is right in that the point that was in our minds was the question of legal representation. It appears to me that by these Amendments the matter has been broadened and that in fact our point has been achieved. The whole argument then was that if the words "as is expedient" were retained, it might be said that it is inexpedient to allow lawyers into places of this nature. It is easy for a governor to say that it is inexpedient to have a lawyer there. I think that case is completely met by omitting those words and putting the position plainly, as the Subsection now does,
—provision for ensuring that a person who is charged with any offence … shall be given a proper opportunity of presenting his case.
I hope I am not being presumptuous in saying that it would appear to any lawyer that if a person is to be given a proper opportunity to present his case, that can only mean one thing, that he shall be able to obtain legal representation. By the deletion of these words, "as is expedient" that has now been made possible, and I entirely agree with the Under-Secretary of State. I think that these Amendments precisely meet our point, and I shall support them.

Mr. Janner: I am rather surprised to hear the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) speak in the way he has done. The words do not seem to me to convey the definite point that a person who is charged with one of these offences shall be entitled to legal representation. After

all, someone or other might come to the conclusion that he has been given a proper opportunity of presenting his case if he has been given a sheet of paper and a pencil and allowed to sit down and write out his case and then come before the particular tribunal that is to hear the case. This is an extremely important matter which does not allow of any question of ambiguity. In my view this Clause should be framed in such a way that there can be no question as to the right of the individual to be legally represented if he chooses to be so represented. We are not dealing here with a trivial matter. It may be that some of the cases which will be dealt with are not of such a grave nature as others, but this Subsection deals with a position which admits of a sentence of flogging. We should not deny in this regard a right which is allowed in other cases. This House ought not to allow any possibility of misunderstanding in this regard.
The position is even worse for an individual who is being charged within prison walls than it is for a person outside. After all, a person outside can choose if he wants a lawyer. There are circumstances under which he is given free legal aid. There is a court. The atmosphere is different. He may have friends in court. The whole surroundings, bad as they are in respect of any individual in an ordinary court, are infinitely worse when it comes to the position of a man undergoing detention, who has to rely on the good feelings of those who may have very severe feelings against him.
That being the case, I ask for an assurance from my right hon. Friend that he will incorporate in this Clause some words which will make it absolutely and abundantly clear that in no circumstances shall anybody be entitled to say that the words as they stand ultimately will mean that the person concerned is not entitled to have legal representation. I want that to be perfectly clear, so clear that not only we in this House shall have that assurance, but that no judge or person interpreting this Bill, when it becomes an Act, shall have any alternative but to give that interpretation.

Mr. Donovan: I raised this matter on the Second Reading. Under the Clause the person who is to be given a proper opportunity of presenting


his case is the person who is charged. My experience on other statutes is that if a person claims he is entitled to be legally represented, then express provision is necessary for that purpose. I should be content with the assurance of the Home Secretary that legal representation will be permitted, but I do hope that such assurance will be forthcoming.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Benson: This is a point with which I have been very much concerned for many years. I did succeed in carrying the Clause for a prisoner's friend against the Government in the 1939 Bill. The particular Subsection covers not merely the case of the serious offence which may involve flogging, but it also involves the most trivial offences. While I would not suggest the precluding of legal representation, if it were thought necessary, I do suggest that this is something entirely new in our prison system. We shall not get an effective method developed except by trial and error.
We cannot here possibly attempt to draft rules as to how an inquiry shall be carried out in a prison. We should have to turn the inquiry into a court of law with the whole paraphernalia of a court of law. As that is quite impracticable, we shall have to rely on the good sense and good will of the people administering the prisons, under the Home Secretary, to evolve some method of dealing with the problem raised in this Clause. I want the best possible method evolved by which the prisoner can put his case, but I do not want to tie the Home Secretary to any one form or method.

Mr. Janner: No one is asking for that. All that one is asking in this matter is that it should be permissible for the person concerned to be legally represented.

Mr. Benson: What does that mean? Does it mean that it would be permissible for every person to be legally represented, or permissible for the Home Secretary to grant the right if he thought fit?

Mr. Janner: Permissible that the person charged should have the right to be represented if he so desires.

Mr. Benson: I think that is quite impracticable. I do not know whether

hon. Members know how many cases come up in the prison each day. It is quite customary for 10, 15 or 20 cases a day to be adjudicated upon by the governor. Any prisoner who wished to make trouble for the Home Secretary to give him legal representation could cause unlimited trouble. There is also the danger that if the trouble maker wished to make trouble by demanding legal representation, he might get more severe punishment.

Mr. Janner: I quite agree that for a trivial offence there should not be legal representation. I was thinking of a case where a person might be flogged, and there I think he ought to have legal representation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must remind hon. Members that their remarks are getting extremely wide of the Amendments. The Amendments before the House are to leave out the words "such" and "as is expedient." Hon. Members are entitled only to discuss those matters which arise directly out of the omission or inclusion of those two phrases, and not the wider question.

Mr. Benson: While accepting your direction, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on the question of legal representation I think that the most that the Home Secretary can say at the present moment is that he will not exclude the possibility of a prisoner having legal representation where the charge is a very serious one. That is a very different thing from giving the prisoner the right to have it, irrespective of the offence.

Mr. Ede: I want to confine my remarks to the Amendments. I regard the words which it is proposed to leave out as really meaning rules, made under this provision, which the Home Secretary thinks he can get away with. That is what I understand by" such … as is expedient." I have moved to leave out the words "such … as is expedient" in order to make it clear that rules made under this Clause shall make provisions for ensuring, not as much provision as is expedient, but as much provision as ought to satisfy reasonable people who have regard to all the circumstances of the case. I thought I had placed myself under a much more severe obligation by proposing to omit these words than by allowing the Clause to stand as originally drafted. I have


placed myself under an obligation to consider the kind of case that has been raised here this afternoon. I promised that I was going to appoint a committee on prison punishment, and these rules will be among the things which will be referred to that committee for consideration. I hope to get some advice from the committee with regard to the way in which this matter should be framed.
With regard to the rules, it is quite clear that rules of the kind which I am now placing myself under an obligation to produce must deal in different ways with different degrees and circumstances surrounding particular offences. When we were considering this Clause, I gave the committee an account of what I was doing in order to ensure that, in the existing system, I should be assured, when I had to consider a recommendation for flogging, that the whole of what the person concerned wanted to ask had been recorded on the documents in front of me, and that what he had to say should be made known to me.
Since the Committee stage of the Bill, I have sent round a circular indicating that I shall send an officer to the prison on the occasions when a man is charged with an offence like mutiny, incitement to mutiny or gross personal violence, which might involve him in flogging, so that I can have the evidence in the case reported to me in a way that will enable me to reach a proper judgment on the matter. Let it not be forgotten that the person who orders flogging is not the prison governor, not a member of the visiting committee, but the Home Secretary in every case. That is why I want to be assured, as I am quite sure any hon. Member who had to discharge that duty would want to be assured, that I have the whole story in front of me, because it is very difficult indeed to judge on paper, in any event, and particularly on paper which does not disclose the whole of the way in which the inquiry was conducted. In such a case, it is impossible to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
That is the spirit in which I have been endeavouring to administer this particular difficult and repugnant part of my duties under the existing arrangements, and I ask the House to accept the fact that I

am leaving out these words, which leave me an avenue of escape from doing what is right and leave me only a duty of doing what is expedient, as an indication that I am endeavouring in these matters to bring the administration of our prisons into line with the most enlightened opinion in the country.

Earl Winterton: I think it is only fair to say that the right hon. Gentleman has amply fulfilled the promise he gave to the Committee. While I do not in any way question the motives of those who have put the point of view of the prisoner, I must repeat in the House what I said in Committee, that we must have regard to fairness all round and remember that the warders are also men with a difficult job to do—I am glad to have the assenting nod of the right hon. Gentleman—and that it is difficult to get members of the prison service. We have to remember that warders and members of the public who have not committed crimes are just as important to protect as the prisoner. I consider that the right hon. Gentleman has given fair consideration to the case, and I would like to repeat, for the fifteenth time, the fact, which does not seem to be wholly accepted by hon. Gentlemen belonging to the Socialist Party, that, in my opinion, in this Amendment the right hon. Gentleman has gone a long way towards producing the fairest system—[Interruption.] It is no use the hon. Gentleman grumbling at me. I say it is the fairest system of penal treatment that there is in any country, and I deprecate the whole tendency of certain hon. Gentlemen who suggest that the prisoner is always in the right and the prison governor always in the wrong.

Mr. Janner: May I ask the noble Lord how he can possibly relate anything that has been said on this side of the House to the suggestion that warders or any other officials should not be properly protected? It is quite wrong for him to read that suggestion into any of the remarks we have made.

Earl Winterton: My short answer to that is that all the advocacy has been on the side of the convicted and never on the side of anybody else.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask a question of the Home Secretary, who has not been quite so explicit as I should like him to be? Will he tell us whether he accepts


the interpretation of the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) that prisoners will be definitely entitled to legal representation?

Mr. Ede: I am not going to pre-judge the work of the committee which I have appointed, or to give them a lead; if I did that, I should be told that what the committee did was merely what I had asked them to do. I want to give them a complete opportunity to draft a set of rules which I can consider without having to give them the kind of lead that might, in certain circumstances, be regarded as circumscribing the range of their activities.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 12, leave out "as is expedient."—[Mr. Younger.]

CLAUSE 47.—(Remission for good conduct and release on licence of young prisoners.)

Mr. Benson: I beg to move, in page 43, line 41, to leave out:
at not less than twelve months.
The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the operation of this Clause to all sentences in prison imposed upon persons under the age of 21. I move it because of the extraordinary contrast between the effect of imprisonment and effect of Borstal on adolescents. If we take comparisons of those with previous sentences, we find that, of those who go to prison, between six and seven out of 10 return to prison; whereas only three or four out of 10 go back to Borstal or do not make good. One of the effective methods of dealing with the Borstal boy is aftercare. It seems to me essential, with the disastrous record that imprisonment of adolescents can bring, that aftercare should also be part of a prison sentence. With this Amendment to Clause 47, and the consequential Amendments to the Sixth Schedule, I propose that every sentence of imprisonment on those under 21 shall carry with it a period of six months' aftercare. The effect of this would be to bring in about nine or 10 times as many youngsters who are sentenced to imprisonment than would be the case under the Clause as drafted. I commend this Amendment to the House and to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Paget: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Ede: I have had the opportunity of discussing this point with my hon. Friend and of considering this Amendment and those Amendments to the Sixth Schedule which tie up with it. I have come to the conclusion that the case for this reform has been made out. I think that it enables us to deal satisfactorily with a point which gave us some anxiety during the Committee stage. My hon. Friend was then honest enough to say on one occasion that, while he recognised the problem, he could not suggest a remedy for it. He has since devoted a very great deal of time and attention to this question and I want to thank him for the care he has given to it and to recommend the House to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 48.—(Release on licence of persons serving imprisonment for life.)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 44, line 18, to leave out from "section," to "but," in line 20.
This Amendment goes with the following one to line 22. They are purely drafting Amendments to complete the small point of clarification which was raised relating to the question of persons being unlawfully at large. It is really a matter of legal drafting.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 44, line 22, at the end, to insert:
and where any person is so recalled his licence shall cease to have effect and he shall, if at large, be deemed to be unlawfully at large"[Mr. Younger.]

CLAUSE 50.—(Transfers from prison to Borstal institution and vice versa.)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 44, line 32, to leave out from "is," to "under," in line 33.
I am indebted to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) for having called attention to the point which is made by this Amendment. Words are introduced at an earlier stage to ensure that a person could not be transferred from prison to Borstal if he was below the lowest Borstal age of 16. It was suggested by my hon. Friend that if there were a case, say, of a boy in prison, who was suitable in all respects for transfer to Borstal, it might be better to


transfer him to Borstal in spite of the fact that he might be a few months under 16. This has been considered, and my right hon. Friend thinks that this is a sound point, and consequently by this Amendment the words that put that limitation of age upon the power of transfer are omitted.

Amendment agreed to.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 44, line 44, to leave out from "term," to the end of the Subsection.
On the Order Paper the line is misprinted as line 45. We had some discussion in Committee on this provision, by which the Home Secretary can make transfers of persons from prisons to Borstal if he thinks it is desirable. It appears, however, from the language used in the proviso, paragraph (a), that the transfer may be made to Borstal for a longer period than the unexpired term of the sentence. The words in the paragraph are:
(a) as if for references therein to three years and four years there were substituted respectively references to the unexpired term and a period being the sum of the unexpired term and one year.
It would appear that the Home Secretary can increase the sentences without going to the courts. During the discussion the Home Secretary said that that was not so, that the words did not have that meaning, and that he had power only to sentence to Borstal for the unexpired term of the original sentence. However, he said he would look at the matter again to see if this were the correct interpretation of the present wording, and that, if necessary, he would find some less obscure wording to make it quite clear that he had no power to increase the sentences. Nothing has been put down on the Order Paper to that effect, and so I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would explain the position.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think it is clear as a matter of construction that this Clause does confer on the right hon. Gentleman the power of increasing the period during which a young person under 21 years of age can be deprived of his liberty either in prison or in a Borstal institution. I think I am right in saying that the power conferred

on the right hon. Gentleman by this Clause is entirely unprecedented. While I think a good case can be made out for saying that a young person sent to prison should be transferred to Borstal rather than remain in prison, if Borstal is likely to prove effective in his case, I am not at all sure that the great power which this Clause appears to give of extending the period during which that person can be deprived of his liberty should be left to the sole discretion of any Home Secretary.
It is, surely, a novel power for any member of a Government of this country to have, there being no trial, and no right of appeal, apparently, from the right hon. Gentleman's decision. I must say that I think the wording of the proviso here makes it quite clear that the effect of what the right hon. Gentleman can do is that he can add to the term during which a young person is kept away from his family and relations, and during which he is under the control of public authorities—that the period may be extended to be in excess of the period of detention awarded by the court which convicted him of the offence.

Mr. Ede: Earlier this evening we received compliments on the improved drafting effected by certain Amendments which were accepted, and I regret that the drafting in this proviso should still appear to give difficulties, although I admit that it is obscure. I have done my very best to persuade the draftsmen to provide better wording, because I am sure that there is no difference between the two sides of the House on what we want to do. I am assured that we are in fact doing what we intend. I am advised that the effect of the Clause is governed as follows. A sentence of Borstal training involves detention for a maximum of three years and supervision for a period from release until the expiration of four years from the date of the sentence; that is, the maximum period of detention plus one year. As I understand it, if at the end of two years a person sentenced to Borstal training is released as having sufficiently profited by that training to be allowed to return to his home or to employment, he is then under supervision for two years; that is, the time to which he was sentenced plus one year.
The Clause says that if, in the case of a person transferred to a Borstal insti-


tution under the Clause, the unexpired term of imprisonment is less than three years, then for the three years' detention one substitutes detention for the unexpired term, and for the limit of supervision one substitutes the limit of the unexpired term plus one year. Let us suppose that when a youth goes to a Borstal institution he has 18 months still to serve. He will serve a maximum of 18 months in the Borstal institution, plus 12 months under supervision—30 months altogether. He will, of course, be under supervision for a year, which might not be so if he remains in prison. I hope that none of us will regard the period of supervision as equivalent to a sentence.
I have tried to make the position as clear as I can. I am advised that the somewhat complicated wording of the Clause means what I have said. However, I will persevere to see if I can find legal wording to give effect to what I have stated, more or less colloquially, which is certainly the intention, and which would meet the objection raised by the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment. I am certain that we all intend to do the same thing. I am advised by a draftsman, whose work has been very highly complimented during the course of the evening, that he has succeeded; but I will see if he can exercise his ingenuity a little further to find words which will make it as clear to the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) as it is to the draftsman at present.

Mr. Grimston: Perhaps I might speak again with the leave of the House. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. As I understand it, I should be correct in saying that this reference to one year is to provide for the year of supervision after having served the sentence.

Mr. Ede: Yes.

Mr. Grimston: That explanation certainly appears to me to be all right, but I must confess to be still puzzled by the wording. Perhaps some draftsman in another place may be able to bring some fresh light to bear on the subject. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will still pursue the matter to see if it is not possible to improve the wording.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: May I put a point to the right hon. Gentleman which has

caused a little trouble? The Subsection says:
Provided that if on that date the unexpired term of his sentence is less than three years those provisions shall have effect
That refers us to the provisions in the Second Schedule. If we turn to the Schedule, we find that paragraph 3 states:
If before the expiration of four years from the date of his sentence"—
that is the period including the time of supervision—the person involved
has failed to comply with any requirements,
he may be recalled. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the paragraph, he will see that it states:
They may by order recall him to a Borstal institution; and thereupon he shall be deemed to be unlawfully at large and shall be liable to be detained in the Borstal institution until the expiration of three years from the date of his sentence, or the expiration of six months from the date of his being taken into custody under the order, whichever is the later.
It seems to me there is a possibility that the person may be recalled less than six months before the end of the supervisory period, in which case he will have to serve six months from that period, which slightly enlarges the time. That is a real possibility, according to the wording. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman desires this, or whether this is a matter which has not been considered.

Mr. Ede: This is a new point, and it shows how complicated is the whole matter. I am not going to give an answer to so skilled a cross-examiner without having the opportunity of taking advice, but I will have the whole matter investigated—I am certain there is no difference between us. We desire that the term of detention shall not be extended, but there is no objection to reasonable supervision for the same period as anyone who had been originally sentenced to Borstal would have undergone. That is what we wish to achieve, and I will devote my energies to ascertaining that we are not going beyond that.

Mr. Grimston: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 63.—(Reports of persons detained in approved schools.)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 51, line 41, to leave out Clause 63.
This Clause was inserted against my advice during the Committee stage, and I am obliged, therefore, to make much the same speech tonight as I made in Committee in opposition to it. The Clause gives to the courts a statutory power to call for periodical reports upon the progress and conduct of any person detained in an approved school, who has been ordered to be sent there under the provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act; in other words, it gives statutory power to the court which sends a child to an approved school to call, as a right, for reports periodically—I do not say how often—on the progress and conduct of the child who has been sent there.
9.15 p.m.
I want to emphasise that, in suggesting to the House that this Clause is unnecessary and should be omitted, I am not putting forward the view that it is undesirable for courts to take an interest in the subsequent fate of persons in respect of whom they have had occasion to make an order. It is obviously very useful, from the point of view of helping their judgment in future cases, that they should have some knowledge of the results of their work, and that they should know whether a certain youth whom they may have sent, after careful and anxious consideration, for training had in fact made good, and whether their judgment about him had proved right. There is nothing at all between me and the persons who supported this Clause on that score.
What I say is that no court which has in the past been anxious to obtain information about a case which has been before it has, so far as I am aware, ever found any difficulty in getting the necessary information. It was not alleged in Committee or, at any rate, no examples were given, that a report had been withheld from any court that wished to have a report about one of its cases. I do not believe that the authorities concerned with any young persons who have come before the courts would ever withhold reports at reasonable intervals to the court which was interested. They are only too de-

lighted when the magistrates or other persons who have had occasion to send young persons to them take a lively and active interest in the whole matter. Therefore, if a court asks for information, it already gets it.
The Clause, however, goes much further than that, and suggests that there should be statutory power to demand this information. I do not say that if this power were given it would necessarily be abused, or that any very great harm would be done, but I say that there is no need for it, and that all the facilities can be made available, and would undoubtedly be made available, to the courts without any such statutory power. I think it is wrong in principle to put into an Act of Parliament a power for which no need has been shown. Secondly, I think it is wrong in principle that we should give power to a court or any other body to demand that some other body periodically reports, unless it has at the time when the report is demanded some function to perform in the matter.
It is perfectly clear, I think, that when a court asks for these reports, it has no longer any function to perform concerning them. Once an order has been made and the person has gone to an institution, it is for the authorities there to regulate the whole of the future treatment of the person concerned, unless, of course, for any reason that person has to be brought back to the court for some offence, or for a revision of the order; and in that case there can be no need for any additional statutory provision for the information to be supplied.
I also think, and I mentioned this in Committee, that while there seems to be no actual need for statutory power, there is the possibility of one or perhaps two rather undesirable results. It may well be that if the power were in the statute periodical reports would be asked for almost as a matter of routine. That would add to the work of the people who prepare them and to the papers in the office of the court, and would serve no useful purpose. I do not think that we should add to the work in that way unnecessarily, in the absence of any good ground or proof for introducing this power.
As I have said, the court has in fact no control over the case once it has left the court, and I think that the giving to the


court of statutory power to call for information might well persuade certain members of the court to think that they had some right to interfere. They might well ask at some future date why that power was given to them specifically by Act of Parliament if it were not that they might express to the authorities their displeasure at what was being done or their belief that the case had not subsequently been well handled. It is not desirable that the court should be encouraged to think at this stage that it has any further control over the case.
Those are the disadvantages of giving a statutory power. I re-emphasise what I said in my opening remarks: I do not think there is anything at all between the Government view and what the supporters of this Clause said they wanted. All they wanted was that information should be available, on request, to courts. I do not think there is any need for a statutory power for that purpose. Nobody mentioned a single case where a report had been withheld, and I do not believe that it would ever be withheld. We gave an assurance in Committee that if hon. Members had any doubts about this, we would be prepared to set those doubts at rest by issuing instructions to all the authorities in all the institutions which might be concerned with this that when a court asked for periodical information, that information should be granted. I believe that such an instruction is unnecessary, but we gave the assurance that we would do that. I ask the House to say that a statutory power of this kind is unnecessary and that it is wrong in principle to put in such a power when no need for it has been shown.

Earl Winterton: I find myself—and I believe some other hon. Members do—in exactly the same difficulty as we were in during the Committee stage. This Clause was carried against the Government by 18 votes to three. It was an entirely non-party vote, and only two non-official Members voted for the Government. The Under-Secretary used exactly the same contradictory arguments on that occasion as he has used tonight. He says that it is undesirable that the courts should ask for periodical reports. That is the effect of his argument—

Mr. Younger: No.

Earl Winterton: Yes. He said it was undesirable. I noted his words very carefully at the time. He said that after the child or young person had been convicted, the courts should not have any further interest in him, but that it was for the school to deal with him.

Mr. Younger: The noble Lord will forgive me, but that is not so. I said that it was undesirable that the courts should be encouraged to think that they hail any further right to interfere in the case or that they had any function in the case. I thought it was extremely desirable that they should be interested in knowing, for their information in regard to future cases, how their previous decisions had worked out. That would be a good thing and there would be no difficulty in their having that information, What I said was undesirable was that they should be encouraged to think, as I believe they would be by this Clause, that they have a function to perform in respect of the case. They have no function to perform in those circumstances.

Earl Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has agreed to everything I said. He has said that the court should not be encouraged to believe that they have any right to interfere in the case. The Clause contains no suggestion that they have any right. The case has been disposed of. All the Clause does is give them the power—I ask the House to note this—which the hon. Gentleman at the end of his speech tells us that they already possess by custom, of asking for periodical reports. However, for some obscure reason which has not been made clear to the House on this occasion and was not made clear to the Committee, and was consequently responsible for the majority of 18 against three in favour of the Clause, the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to have put into the Measure a power which is in fact already enjoyed by the court in the shape of the custom which has grown up.
The hon. Gentleman uses as his principal argument for objecting to this the fact that if it were put into the Bill it would be an indication to the courts to do something quite different from what they are doing at the present time. According to his own admission, at the present time they do, in fact, in a particular type of case, ask for, and are granted,


reports about the progress of a child. I should have thought that I knew something about the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933. What is being done is in accord with the spirit of that Act, but for some reason that I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman refuses to give statutory enactment to it, for the trifling reason that if statutory enactment is given to it, it will encourage the courts to go beyond what they are doing at the present time. On his own admission they are doing what this Clause seeks to lay down. I do not want to go to a Division on it, but it is regrettable. In regard to our procedure here, I should say that we are not content with the present procedure. Amendments which have been defeated upstairs are not called, but when a vote on  Clause has gone against the Government it is discussed in the House, and we are merely given the same answers as we were given upstairs: It is unfortunate.

Mr. Ede: The first part of the last observation of the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) was not quite fair to the Government.

Earl Winterton: I was not attacking the Government. I was doing something which was not strictly in Order, perhaps; I was criticising the procedure on the Report stage.

Mr. Ede: The latter part of last evening and a considerable part of today I have devoted to dealing with pledges that I gave in Standing Committee, and I have fulfilled those pledges by new Clauses and substantial Amendments to the Bill. If it was not possible to meet my hon. Friends and Members of the Opposition I have quite frankly said that the draftsmen were not able to provide the necessary words. This is really an administrative problem. We all know the difficult position in which a body is put when it is stated in a statute that it has a right to do something. It entirely alters the relationship, which, in this case, I am glad to say has grown up between many courts and schools.
The schools welcome visitors and contacts from the courts, but they are always on the basis that it is an act of courtesy on the part of the schools to receive the visitor or make the report that is required. In fact, there are one or two schools and

other institutions which are becoming such show places that I am told there is rarely a day when they do not get a visitor of some kind or other. On occasions they would like to have a clear day in which to get on with their ordinary work without interruption. I desire that the voluntary co-operation between the courts and the schools should continue. I do not want to put the courts in the position where they can of right demand a report with regard to a particular case. I want to emphasise to the magistrates and to the schools that from the day the young person enters the school he becomes the entire responsibility of the staff and the managers of the school. While they will be glad to give an account of how the young person is getting on, the responsibility for that child on the part of the court has ceased from the moment he enters the school.
9.30 p.m.
I venture to suggest that that is a sound administrative line to adopt, and that one desires the relationship between the courts and the schools to be on a voluntary and not on a statutory basis. I am taking steps to make it quite clear to the schools that that should be the basis of their relationship with the courts who send them children, or with courts who might desire to send a child if they thought, when they saw the school, that it was the suitable place for a child whom they had under consideration or whom they might possibly in future have under consideration. I hope that the House will feel that this is the best way in which to arrange this relationship, and I can assure the noble Lord that it is no sense of disrespect to the views expressed by the Committee that I ask the House to reverse the decision taken in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 71.—(Interpretation.)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 58, line 42, at the end, to insert:
(3) Where the age of any person at any time is material for the purposes of any provision of this Act, or of any Order in Council made there under, regulating the powers of a court, his age at the material time shall be deemed to be or to have been that which appears to the court to be or to have been his age at that time
Those hon. Members who have sat throughout the proceedings so far will be


glad to meet this Amendment. We have already removed a phrase relating to persons appearing to be of a certain age in some 20 or 30 places in the Bill, and this is the Amendment which we are proposing to insert in its place. It defines the procedure under which a court shall determine what is the age of a person who comes before it. I have already explained the point of this at an earlier stage, and it is really consequential on all the other Amendments we have accepted.

Mr. West: Is the actual age of the young offender to be taken into consideration or not? If it is, then I do not think that my hon. Friend's Amendment affects that purpose. The actual age ought to be taken into consideration. Let us take a simple case. We may have a young offender whose age is 16 but, by reason of physical development, may appear to the court to be 18. If he appears to the court to be 18 years of age, that is deemed to be his age. If that is so, then an offender of 16 years of age can be sentenced to imprisonment, and if my hon. Friend desires to effect by this Amendment that the actual age of the offender is to be taken into consideration, then it could be done by the insertion of a few words that in the absence of proof as to the actual age his age shall be deemed to be the age which he appears to be. As the Amendment is drawn, I respectfully submit that it does not effect that purpose at all.

Mr. Ede: I rather think that my hon. Friend is on a sound point. I do not know what age my Under-Secretary might be taken for by people who did not first consult Dod. I know that I was somewhat surprised, when I consulted Dod, to find what a veteran I had appointed as my Under-Secretary. Therefore, I think it would be desirable in another place that we should put in some words which will ensure that, unless there is proof to the contrary, this shall be deemed to be the age. Some of the young children who come before the courts are somewhat like Topsy. It is difficult to get birth certificates and reliable evidence as to their age, and in such cases it will be necessary to adopt the procedure in this Amendment. But where the biological age can be demonstrated beyond doubt, I think it is desirable to make it clear that the court is not then to say, "Well he looks older or younger," than

his birth certificate would make him out to be.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Hale: I beg to move, in page 58, line 45, to leave out from "offence." to the end of line 47, and to insert:
for which the court is required to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life.
This Amendment is purely consequential on the passing of the new Clause, (Suspension of death penalty) yesterday.

Mr. Benson: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 72.—(Application to Scotland.)

Amendment made: In page 59, line 17, at the end, insert:
section (Suspension of death penalty);".—[Mr. Hale.]

CLAUSE 73.—(Short title, commencement, extent and repeals.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 59, line 41, at the end, to insert:
and different days may be appointed by any such Order for the purposes of different provisions of this Act.
As the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) pointed out, we could hardly expect to bring a Bill of this complexity into operation on a single day, especially as the physical provision of some of the institutions may take some time. Therefore it is desirable that we should have power to bring the various provisions of the Bill into operation as and when opportunity occurs.

Amendment agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Borstal Training.)

Consequential Amendments made.

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Release on Licence of Persons Sentenced to Corrective Training or Preventive Detention.)

Consequential Amendments made.

FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Administrative Provisions as to Probation.)

Consequential Amendments made.

SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Release of Young Offenders from Prison on Licence.)

Mr. Benson: I beg to move, in page 71, line 4, after "sentence," to insert:
or six months from the date of release whichever is the longer.

Mr. West: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Ede: I am advised that the wording of this Amendment could be improved, and it would be more convenient if the drafting were done in another place. If my hon. Friends will agree to withdraw the Amendment, I will undertake to have it inserted with suitable wording in another place.

Mr. Benson: I certainly agree, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Consequential Amendments made.

"The Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910. 10 Edw.
In Section thirty-five, paragraph (2) shall cease to have effect.


7 &amp; 1 Geo. 5. c. 24.

I have put down this Amendment in response to an appeal made to me by my hon. Friend the Member for South Battersea (Mrs. Ganley). It deals with the provision under Section 35 of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, which provides that a person convicted of a felony is disqualified for life from holding a justice's licence. In my short period of office I have had the instance of a man who desired to get a justice's licence who at some early stage of his life had committed some offence which was technically a felony. During these discussions the word "trivial" has been used to cover a wide variety of matters. This offence really was trivial but the only way for this man to get a justice's licence was by His Majesty granting him a free pardon for the felony which he had committed a long time before. This Amendment will avoid that kind of thing happening in the future.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 80, line 40, column 2, leave out from beginning, to end of line 43.—[Mr. Younger.]

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 82, line 13, column 2, to leave out from "time," to the end of line 22.
This and the next Amendment both relate to the same thing. They are con-

NINTH SCHEDULE.—(Consequential and Minor Amendments.)

Consequential Amendment made.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in line 45, column 2, after "two," to insert:
in Subsection (2) for the words 'penal servitude or imprisonment,' there shall be substituted the words 'imprisonment or detention' and.
This and the two following Amendments and another further down the Order Paper relate to the same matter. They are drafting Amendments consequential upon the abolition of penal servitude and the need to cover other forms of detention such as corrective training, preventive detention and Borstal training.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 78, line 18, at the end, to insert:

sequential on the first New Clause which was moved yesterday.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendment made.

TENTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments Repealed.)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 86, line 22, column 3, to leave out "Section three."
This is consequential on the insertion of the provision relating to peremptory challenge, which was to have been left out of the Bill altogether at an earlier stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

TITLE

Amendment made: In line 1, at beginning, insert:
Suspend the death penalty for murder, to."—[Mr. Ede.]

Ordered:
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments in Clause 22, page 24, line 35; Clause 68, page 54, line 42, and Clause 68, page 55, line 30; the new Clause (Payment of costs of defence on acquittal, etc.); and the Amendments in Schedule 9, page 76, line 6:


Schedule 9, page 78, line to; Schedule 9, page 8o, line 23, and Schedule 9, page 83, line 30, standing on the Notice Paper in my name."—[Mr. Ede.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

CLAUSE 22.—(Power to make reception order.)

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 24, line 35, at the end, to insert:
(3) The Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1908, shall apply in relation to any duly qualified medical practitioner who gives evidence for the purposes of this Section as it applies to a person called to give evidence at the instance of the court for the purpose of the hearing of a charge for an indictable offence.
The purpose of the Amendment is to make similar provision as regards the payments of witnesses' allowances to the medical practitioners who give evidence under Clause 22 in a case where the offence is not indictable as is made Older Clause 24, (6), as that Clause has been amended on Report. Clause 22, as it stands, does not make any provision for the payment of witnesses' allowances to medical practitioners in such a case, and it is highly desirable that there should be power to make such payment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 68.—(Expenses and grants Payable out of moneys provided by Parliament.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 54, line 42, after "aforesaid," to insert:
or
(b) in the conduct of research into the causes of delinquency and the treatment of offenders, and matters connected therewith,
In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) moved a new Clause to give power to the Secretary of State to conduct research or assist research into the causation and prevention of crime. The principle of the Clause was accepted and it was withdrawn on my undertaking to draft Amendments to Clause 68 which would give the necessary power. These Amendments fulfil that undertaking.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 55, line 30, at end, to insert:

(f) towards the expenditure of any body or person approved by the Secretary of State in the conduct of research into the causes of delinquency and the treatment of offenders, and matters connected therewith."—[Mr. Ede.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Payment of costs of defence on acquittal, etc.)

(1) If in any such proceedings as are mentioned in section one of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1908, the accused is acquitted or discharged under section twenty-five of the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, or the information is dismissed, the court may, if it thinks fit, direct the payment out of local funds in accordance with the provisions of that Act of such sums as appear to the court reasonably sufficient to compensate the accused for the expenses properly incurred by him in carrying on his defence.

(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (2) of section thirteen of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, where an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal against a conviction is allowed, the court may, if it thinks fit, direct the payment out of local funds in accordance with the provisions of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1908, of such sums as appear to the court reasonably sufficient to compensate the appellant for any expenses properly incurred in the prosecution of his appeal (including any proceedings preliminary or incidental thereto) or in carrying on his defence.

(3) Where an appeal to the House of Lords brought under subsection (6) of section one of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, is determined in favour of the defendant, the House of Lords may, if they think fit, direct the payment out of local funds in accordance with the provisions of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1908, of such sums as appear to them reasonably sufficient to compensate the defendant for any expenses properly incurred by him in the appeal to the House of Lords or in the prosecution of his appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal or in carrying on his defence.

(4) In relation to a person tried before a court of assize or quarter sessions, references in this section to the carrying on of his defence shall be construed as references to the carrying on of his defence before that court, before the examining justices by whom he was committed for trial, and before any other court of assize or quarter sessions before which proceedings for the offence in respect of which he was committed were begun but not concluded.

(5) The amount of any costs directed to be paid to any person under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section shall be ascertained as soon as practicable by the proper officer of the court by which the direction is given; and where the direction is given by the Court of Criminal Appeal, the proper officer shall make out and deliver to the said person, or to any person who appears to the proper officer to be acting on behalf of that


person, an order on the treasurer of the county or borough out of the funds of which the costs are payable under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1908, for the payment of that amount.

(6) The amount of any costs directed to be paid under subsection (3) of this section shall be ascertained, and an order on the treasurer of the county or borough aforesaid may be made for the payment of any amount so ascertained, by such officer or officers, and in such manner, as may be prescribed by order of the House of Lords.

(7) This section shall be construed as one with the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1908.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is a not unimportant new Clause which will extend to courts of quarter session and assize the discretion, which is already possessed by courts of summary jurisdiction, to award costs to a defendant who is successful. It has been sometimes a serious defect in our administration of justice that, although a defendant might be put perhaps to very great expense in defending himself in the course of indictable proceedings in the criminal courts, there were no circumstances in which those courts before which indictments are tried could award him costs.
I am not by any means saying that costs should automatically be awarded in every case to a successful defendant. In the majority of cases, whilst one rejoices with the defendant at his acquittal, it would be wrong to impose on the community the burden of paying the costs of the defence. But where the case is one in which there are exceptional circumstances—which, for instance, the court considers perhaps ought never to have been brought, where the proceedings have been unusually protracted, or where the prosecution has been a private one—it seems right that courts before which cases are tried on indictment should have the same powers as are already possessed by the justices of ordering costs at their discretion. This new Clause will have that effect.

Mr. Janner: I am very much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend for having framed this new Clause. It is a consequence of a Clause which I put down during Committee stage, as a result

of which he gave an undertaking to deal with the matter. I am a little sorry that in presenting this Clause to the Committee my right hon. and learned Friend saw fit to suggest that it ought not to be used too often by the courts. I hope that he will have a change of heart in regard to that, and perhaps when we reach a later stage he will suggest to the courts that they should be very generous in this regard. It will be difficult for a person who is acquitted, if costs are not awarded to him, to hold up his head in society, because a distinction may be made between the person who has been awarded costs when acquitted and the person who has not. I think that is rather serious. I hope that the courts will interpret this new Clause generously and that a person who has been acquitted will, except in very exceptional circumstances, be entitled to have repaid to him at least a reasonable portion of the costs which he has incurred, without the slur being cast upon him that he has not been sufficiently acquitted, if one may use that expression, as to have the costs awarded.
There is one other point which I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider between now and the final stages of the Bill. There are cases—there have been some recent ones—in which a great injustice has been done by the committal of certain individuals from petty sessional courts to the higher courts. I do not want to go into details. I think that the Committee will be aware of some of the cases. It seems to me that now that we are introducing this important Measure at long last—because it has been a very serious defect in our procedure—it might be considered reasonable that, to some extent, this might be made retrospective. That might perhaps not be done by legislation, but by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary considering the matter an ex gratia one in respect of those who have suffered severely by having been placed in a grave position of peril when there was no justification at all for it.
I know that my right hon. Friend is a man of very warm heart in these matters and that he will appreciate that those who are sometimes put to enormous expense in having to clear their characters, and who are sometimes told by the Judge in the Court of Appeal that there was not the slightest shred or shadow of evidence to justify taking the proceedings or the committal, should


be considered in a similar manner to those who come within the provisions of this new Clause. I commend that to the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General, and I hope we shall have a statement at a later stage showing that they do not regard this as a small matter but as something which should, quite properly, be allowed.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask the Attorney-General to tell us whether this new Clause, with its generous provision, will apply to Scotland? I ask this question because it may be a very considerable time before similar legislation is introduced affecting Scotland. Some of the Clauses in this Bill affect Scotland, and some do not. I hope that, if there is any generous new Clause introduced into this Bill, Scotland will have the advantage of it.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I think most of us on this side of the Committee will welcome this Clause and consider it important. At the same time, I cannot feel that the argument of the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) is really very sound. I think it would be very dangerous if people were to feel that, in criminal cases, costs would follow the event as they do in civil cases. Although I quite agree that this is a very useful power to have and to use in appropriate cases, I feel that it should be rather carefully used, because it seems to me that, if it becomes widely assumed that costs are to follow the event, it might have a serious result on the detection of crime which might be very far from the wishes of those who support the new Clause.

Mr. Donovan: I should not like this new Clause, which is an important one, to be passed without some commendation from this side of the Committee as well. It removes a long-standing grievance, and I think the Government are to be wholly congratulated and sincerely thanked for what they have done in this respect. It would also be true to say that the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) took the initiative in the matter, and I think he is to be congratulated, too.

The Attorney-General: There are three short points I wish to make. It would be

quite impossible and quite unconstitutional to make any provision of this Clause retrospective. Nor, of course, has my right hon. Friend any legal power to dispense public funds in an ex gratia manner in matters of this kind. As to the general principles in accordance with which this Clause should be operated, the matter will be entirely within the discretion of the courts which may operate it. I am bound to say, as far as I am concerned—and I think most persons who are concerned with the administration of justice would take the same view—that it would be highly dangerous if it were to be thought that costs will always, or even normally, follow the event. We anticipate that the courts operating these provisions will follow, in general, the kind of practice that has been adopted in courts of summary jurisdiction in this matter and that they will award costs only in those rather exceptional cases where there are the particular kind of circumstances to which I alluded in moving the new Clause.
In regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend regarding the application of the Clause to Scotland, this Clause does not apply to Scotland. I can hold out some hope to my hon. Friend, without committing my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate in any way, that there is another Bill which is dealing with cognate matters so far as Scotland is concerned. It may be that provision will be made in that Bill, but I do not know.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. George Porter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that this Clause will in no way alter the rights of the person who is charged to take action in a civil court?

The Attorney-General: It will not affect him in any way.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NINTH SCHEDULE.—(Consequential and Minor Amendments.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 76, line 6, at the end, to insert:

The Stipendiary Magistrates Act, 1858, 21 &amp; 22 Vict., c. 73.
In Section nine, for the words "appoint two or more justices one of whom shall be of the quorum, to form a second court," there shall be substituted the words "form one or more additional courts, and appoint to each court two or more justices"; and for the word "second," in the second place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "additional."



In Section ten, for the words "a second," there shall be substituted the words "an additional."



In Section eleven, for the words "a second," there shall be substituted the words "an additional," for the word "second," in the second place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "additional," and for the words "an additional crier," there shall be substituted the words "a crier for each such additional court."

This Amendment has been suggested to us by a former Member of the House of Commons, His Honour Judge Tudor Rees, who, over 20 years ago, represented Barnstaple in two Parliaments and who is at present Chairman of the Surrey Quarter Sessions. In his experience—and I understand this is shared by the chairmen of other quarter sessions—the pressure of business is now so heavy that every quarter sessions have to sit in more than two courts at the same time. The Stipendiary Magistrates Act of 1858 gives authority for quarter sessions to appoint two or more justices to form a second court, but not to form more than two courts. The first of these Amendments gives the necessary power to enable this to be done.

The Act of 1858 also gives power for the Clerk of the Peace or his deputy to

The Local Government Act, 1888, 51 &amp; 52 Vict., c. 41.
In Section eighty-three, in Subsection (4), for the words "a second court," there shall be substituted the words "any additional court."

This Amendment and the two which follow, affecting pages 80 and 83, are consequential on the Amendment which has just been dealt with.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (on recommittal), considered.

To be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — INDIA (FAMILY PENSION FUNDS)

10.5 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): I beg to move,
That an humble address be presented to Hi, Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of

appoint a fit and sufficient person to record the proceedings before the second court and also for the appointment of an additional crier for the second court. The second and third amendments in this group give the necessary powers to enable such officers to be appointed for each additional court. Several times during the course of today's discussion we have heard of the difficulties that now confront courts of quarter sessions owing to the very long calendars in front of them. This is a practical way of enabling courts, where cases are very heavy, to deal with the situation that confronts them.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 78, line 10, at the end, to insert:
Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Family Pension Funds) (Amendment) Order, 1948, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
This is a brief and simple Order which concerns what is called the transferred section of the India Family Pension Funds. This section arose in 1937, when certain balances were transferred to the United Kingdom from India. The problem has arisen that with falling rates of interest, it is found impossible to make investments to maintain the income of the funds. The purpose of the Order is to empower the Commissioners to purchase freehold ground rents in England and Wales. That is an additional power to those now possessed.

Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Gordon-Walker.]

To be resumed upon Tuesday next.

Orders of the Day — CARIBBEAN JOURNEY

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Follick: I rise to report to the House one or two problems I found on a journey which I recently made to the Caribbean. I will deal with the problems country by country, and explain what advantages may be gained by this country by following out certain proposals I will make to the House. I will also explain to the House the problems of those different countries. This is rather different from the usual procedure in an Adjournment Debate, but I have taken advice and I am told that this is perfectly in Order.
The first place at which I made inquiries particularly was the Bahamas. As this is a very important dollar-winning part of the British Empire, I took great interest in finding out in what new way our dollar position could be improved there. I had a conversation with the wife of the Governor, Lady Murphy. She recommended three things very strongly that would bring in a large amount of dollars. The first was goods in the shops. It was her opinion that American tourists going to the Bahamas would gain an idea of what British goods were like if they were in the shops, and which they would not otherwise see unless they came to this country. She looks upon the Bahamas as being a shop window for British products.
She was very insistent also that British educational films should be seen in the Bahamas. What they are getting at the moment there are American crime films which are doing a great deal of harm. Lady Murphy believes that good British educational films will be very acceptable there and productive of good. She was also concerned that there should be a British hospital for American visitors. There are plenty of American specialists who would give their services free. She wanted sanitary appliances brought from this country, because she seemed to think that sanitary arrangements here are much better than those elsewhere. Scientific instruments ought to be provided free for such a hospital; and since such a hospital would be for American tourists, it would be a very important dollar-earning project. In the Bahamas the spread of

tuberculosis is greater than anywhere else in the West Indies, and more attention should be paid to that problem.
While there I inquired about the system of government. There is an Assembly of 27 members, nine of whom are coloured. However, the coloured people are not satisfied with the system of election which has operated up to the present, by which there is an open vote, and they say that they are victimised. At the next election there is to be a secret vote, when it is hoped that colour Labour will have a majority.
I had an opportunity of visiting the Fort Montague Hotel, formerly used as a barracks for American soldiers, which has recently been bought by Butlins. Last year, when the hotel was first sold, the price paid was £150,000. Later in the year the hotel was sold for 380,000, including putting the hotel in good condition. Butlins then paid 450,000 for it.
It was explained to me later that too much money is going into the Bahamas. That is causing the Governor a certain amount of worry, because it has the effect of increasing wages all round. The Governor's wife cited as an example a coloured butler who demanded £10 a week plus food, whereas the butler she took out from England was paid only £4 a week. A seaside house which before the war would have cost £2,000 in England would sell over there for £50,000. Complaint is made that there is no food production because the merchants in Bay Street have agencies with American and British firms, and they do everything possible to prevent the production of food in the Colony. That is all I want to say about the Bahamas, whence I went to Haiti.
In some parts of the Caribbean one cannot go from one country to another direct; a round-about route has to be taken—sometimes taking weeks to travel a distance which could be covered in an hour by air. Yet, in spite of that, in the Caribbean there is astounding ignorance of aviation. Before leaving England I tried unsuccessfully to book a passage to Haiti, being told that I should have to do so over there. When in the Bahamas I tried to book a passage to Haiti, but could not. Even the Governor tried, but could not do so. The Governor called in the Rt. Hon. Harold Christian, who is the director or manager of the


Bahamian Airways Company, but even he could not obtain a passage for me, and did not know how to. Eventually I had to go to Miami and book a passage from there. Oddly enough, there is a regular line running from Miami, yet in the Bahamas nobody seemed to have any knowledge of it.
In Miami I asked at the Pan-American office whether I could book from Santo Domingo to Havana, but they told me that I could not. Yet when I was in Santo Domingo I was told to book to Havana direct by Pan-American Airways. That illustrates that, despite the great distances to be covered, there is ignorance of the possibilities or importance of air travel, even when one approaches the Governor or the director of an airways company.
Haiti has a terrific history. As a matter of fact, the seeds of the French Revolution started there. The name of Napoleon seems to crop up throughout the Caribbean. His wife, Josephine, came from Martinique. When he tried to conquer Haiti, he sent first an army of 40,000. The liberated slaves fought him and beat him, and altogether it cost him 60,000 men. We went there, and we lost 80,000 men in Haiti. General Maitland was forced to surrender, and it was probably the biggest surrender on the part of the British Army up to the time of Singapore. Voodoo is still practised there, and it cannot be stopped. It has come down from the times of slavery.
They want to take our textiles, hardware, biscuits, whisky and soap. They used to get these commodities from Britain by paying dollars, but they cannot get them now. Would it not be far better for us to concentrate our exports on these countries instead of on the United States? All these countries are dollar-paying countries, and their currencies are very high; in fact, it is possible to interchange one's money with dollars as one goes along. Whatever markets we get in Central America or in the Caribbean will be permanent, whereas this terrific export drive we are now making to the United States to get dollars is for a temporary market only, because when that market has been sufficed, it will no longer require our exports. The Board of Trade should give more attention to these markets. These people want our

goods, and they have a great affection for Britain, because Britain, to a great extent, helped to liberate these countries. We were the first country to recognise the independence of Santo Domingo, and we helped Simon Bolivar who liberated Venezuela. There is not the same great love for the United States, because they have interfered far too much in the local politics of these countries. It used to be the usual thing for them to collect their debts by sending in the marines, and these countries have never forgotten that. They have a special appreciation for Britain, and it would be to our benefit in the long run to pay more attention to these countries, with their dollar-earning capacity.
I come now to films. Our films are very much appreciated in these countries much more so than the American films. They want our films. I was told—but I have no means of proving this—that, in order to boost the showing of "Great Expectations," they billed it as an American film. Haiti is a coffee-growing country. They told me that they would make special arrangements with us for payments if we would do business with them. Until the war, all their coffee went to Switzerland, but they would prefer to do business with us.
In Santo Domingo they have a proper Parliament, with labour representation, coming under some sort of dictatorship, and this brings me to the question of dictatorship in the Caribbean. I had a long talk with the dictator. He told me that there was a car at my disposal, and he said, "You can go where you like. If you find anything wrong with this country, you can report it." I could find no dissatisfaction there at all. I found that there was great happiness and tremendous prosperity. That brings me to the question: can we expect to be able to implant in these countries that have had 300 years of slavery, probably a thousand years of cannibalism before that, and a hundred years of chaos on top *of it all—which are just emerging into our ideas of civilisation—a democracy like ours? I do not think that we can. I think that we have to work our passage with them and develop them according to their own standards.
The dictatorship in Santo Domingo has been spoken about. I had every opportunity of investigating everything there


I found a clean city, good roads, shops piled with goods, plenty of money, no grumbling, an adequate police force, and a functioning Parliament. I spoke to various members of their Parliament—in fact I addressed in Spanish a combined meeting of both Houses. I am making a special effort to explain this because it is a dictatorship. This dictator lines his pockets, there is no doubt about that. He helps his family, there is no doubt about that; but he has brought prosperity out of chaos to his country. We have bought the sugar crop in Santo Domingo. By the way, Santo Domingo was the first place to be visited by Columbus. It had the first cathedral and first university in all America.
Recently they had a scare of invasion. There were definite preparations to invade Santo Domingo from Cuba. When I was in Cuba, I took the opportunity of investigating, and it is perfectly true that certain preparations were being made. Whereas this dictator had an estimate of three million dollars a year for education, he had an estimate of only two million dollars for the army. Here we have a dictator who was giving more to education than to his army. It may interest the House to know, in view of happenings here, that capital punishment was abolished in Santo Domingo in 1924. It was abolished here yesterday. They have women's votes, compulsory education and free elections, although if the President does not like a member he puts him out. They have big exports of tobacco, meat and peanut oil. It is peanut oil we are trying to grow in Africa. I went into the peanut oil factory and it was working very satisfactorily.
The country has reserves of £30 million in gold dollars. They have a well established university and a hospital for workers, in which there are 12 doctors for 175 patients. The university has an over-supply of doctors which they are lending to Porto Rica, which is an American dependency. They have no medical faculty in that place. The people of Santo Domingo complain that in 1916 the Americans interfered in their domestic life and for that reason they are not keen on having too much to do with the Americans. Canadian influence is strong and so, peculiarly enough, is the Methodist Church. All religion is tolerated, and there are 5,000 Protestants. That is a country in the

Caribbean which comes under a dictatorship, so that these things have to be judged not by what is a dictatorship and what is not, but what suits a country best.
The whole world has subscribed to a monument there to Christopher Columbus. It is going to cost millions of dollars, and the award for the monument has been given to a young British architect by the name of Gleave. I spoke to him and to several other British people in Santo Domingo. They told me they had no complaints and that they are treated well. They are very prosperous. They want from us technicians, economic advisers, chiefs of police and naval officers.

Sir William Darling: What language?

Mr. Follick: They will have to learn Spanish. Due to this trouble of the invasion from Cuba, they are negotiating with us to buy two destroyers and they want naval officers.
I went to Cuba and I spoke to the President, the Foreign Secretary and a Commission of Parliament. The trade unions in Cuba are coming strongly under Communist influence, and that is what is causing the trouble between Cuba and Santo Domingo. They are afraid there is going to be the trouble in Cuba that there has been in South America. The peculiar thing about Cuba is that they have a wealth of dollars but no petrol. People have to wait in queues up to 10 or 12 hours to get a couple of gallons of petrol. They have the dollars but people cannot get sufficient petrol for their lorries.
I had a talk with the Foreign Secretary and he is very concerned about selling this country Havana tobacco and cigars. He is afraid that if the British public do not get Havana cigars they will lose the taste for them and the market will be totally lost. He even said that they would consider taking sterling under those conditions for some of their exports. The British people have complained there about staff. They have to employ local staff who are not up to the standards of work. But those are their troubles and what they have to put up with. With regard to trade figures, Cuba has 705 million dollars a year exports out of which the Americans take 467 million. We take 131 million and the rest of the world take 106 million roughly.

Mr. Walkden: Would the hon. Gentleman tell me what we get from that part of the world which helps us in our production?

Mr. Follick: Various exports come to this country, but I think it is principally sugar.

Mr. Walkden: Only sugar?

Mr. Follick: I think we get more, because we get £131 million altogether. The next country was Mexico. What struck me as most important in Mexico was the high regard in which the British Council was held. In fact, nowhere else in the world where I have been has the British Council so much influence on the inhabitants. It comes under a very able manager, Mr. Wilson, and wherever you go you come up against the influence of the British Council. If it could only function everywhere as it does in Mexico it would be a very valuable asset.

Mr. Walkden: And the Board of Trade?

Mr. Follick: I did try to make some inquiries while I was there from technicians in the British colony about the oil question and the insurance question. They all were of the same opinion, that we had frightfully mismanaged the insurance question. We sent out a man who was totally incapable of negotiating with Mexicans. He had no idea of the temperament of Mexicans and our insurance business was just thrown away. With regard to oil, there again they said if we had proper negotiators there we would have salvaged something—

Mr. Walkden: Would the hon. Member tell me whether this gentleman was employed by the Hoard of Trade or the Ministry of Transport or the Prudential or one of the other big business insurance companies? Just who employed him?

Mr. Follick: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman who employed him, but I can give his name. His name was Mr. Hinshelwood.

Mr. Walkden: When the Parliamentary Secretary replies would he tell us whether they employed this man or whether he was

employed by private enterprise, and if he made a bad business? It is very serious and it is rather important that the House ought to know.

Mr. Follick: Anyhow the fact of the matter is that our insurance business was an asset of tremendous importance and it was just thrown away.

Sir W. Darlin£: That does not apply to marine insurance, only to fire and accident?

Mr. Follick: I cannot tell the hon. Member what it was. Mexico wants to buy from us machinery, hydro-electric plant and equipment. The B.B.C. representative, Mr. Wesley, complained that the B.B.C. took off the most listened-to item, the afternoon programme, and said that ought never to have been given up.
From there I went to Guatemala. I had the intention of going on to British Honduras, but at the request of the Minister in Guatemala I refrained from so doing. The average opinion of people on the spot is that if we give way on the question of British Honduras, we shall have to give way on all questions of all British territories in Central and South America. The moment we give way on British Honduras it means giving way on the Falklands, and that will mean giving way on British Guiana and even Trinidad. British Honduras has a great wealth of mahogany, indigo and chicle. These are great dollar-earning things. But the all-round complaint is that we have done nothing in the development of British Honduras. I have talked with the Negro population. They number about 60,000. They do not want to change; they want to remain with Great Britain. Guatemala itself is one of the most backward countries in the whole area. When I was in Guatemala—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the Debate having continued for half-an-hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-three Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.